![]() | This page 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. |
I added a couple photos of this condition. Would some of you be willing to help me beef this article up? --- kilbad ( talk) 21:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the article should be tagged for this project. The lede seems POV in that these are largely untested and unregulated chemicals used recreationally and known to cause medical problems yet the article seems to glow about how harmless they are. Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 19:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
This article has been held hostage by a very lengthy (since 2006) edit war mostly between two editors, TraceyR (believer) and Rhode Island Red (skeptic). This situation is untenable and the deadlock can probably only be broken with consistent input from more editors, especially nutrionists and other interested medical personnel. More eyes please. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
..are there any lipid metabolism disorders that may present as a mild case of diabetes that is aggravated by lipid intake? Or any case of diabetes? -- CopperKettle 16:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Can images from a 1902 derm paper be uploaded onto Wikipedia as far as copyright goes? See User_talk:Kilbad#The_nosology_of_parapsoriasis_PDF for more details regarding this question. --- kilbad ( talk) 23:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Listing this here to get more eyes on this. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey all, I decided to raise this concern here because the contributors to this WikiProject would probably have the most experience dealing with articles that inch too close to crossing the line between articles on medical topics and giving medical advice. I invite you to take a look at this section of the TMJ syndrome article and comment about what you think. To me, it seems like a "how-to" guide to treating a medical condition, which is basically giving medical advice, right? However, I'm a little too inexperienced in this area to be bold and just remove or rewrite the whole section, so I was hoping for ideas. The talk page of the article itself is pretty much dead, so I brought this issue here instead of there. I will, however, link to this discussion there, so interested contributors can make their way here. -- Nick— Contact/ Contribs 04:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The article contains some dubious and unsourced medical information as well as peacock terminology. More eyes please. -- Brangifer ( talk) 06:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Are there policies out there regarding how disease synonyms are cited? I think when a disease synonym is included in an article, it should have it's own citation so someone can verify where it has come from. When there are multiple synonyms, I think they should each be associated with their own citation, even if they all come from the same source. The reason being that if someone comes along and adds an additional synonym, the sources of the previous ones are not confused. Any thoughts? --- kilbad ( talk) 23:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Additional eyes are needed at Zidovudine, where a strongly opinionated editor with a block history on the article is stating that cancer is a side effect of AZT. The source is a California website. I don't feel that this satisfies our sourcing requirements for medicine, nor do I think it's appropriate to include a paragraph about the purported carcinogenicity of a substance partially responsible for the reduction in AIDS-related cancers. Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 16:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Addition of links to National Institutes of Health GeneReviews. AN/I discussion of relevance to this project. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Would some of you be willing to proofread the WP:DERM dermatology task force pages? I want to get more dermatologists involved, and would like the project pages looking as professional as possible. Regardless, thank you for all your help in the past! --- kilbad ( talk) 22:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a pdf article in French that I would like to use as a source for a dermatology-related article. Is there anyone that could help me translate it? --- kilbad ( talk) 22:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Anyone willing to review? Start, C or B? Just finished writing. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 21:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The emedicine tags do not seem to work in this infobox. Trying to set them up for limp and unable. Anyone know why? Thanks Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
There are a few dermatology-related categories under discussion at: Talk:List_of_cutaneous_conditions#Additional_sections_.7C_categories. As always, feedback is appreciated! --- kilbad ( talk) 17:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
A self-identified chiropractor ( see the edit summary) keeps adding chiropractic and spinal decompression to the article. Spinal manipulation is usually considered a relative contraindication for this condition and spinal decompression machines are the subject of FDA confiscation and prosecution because of the claims made for them in connection with the treatment of this condition. I'm not sure what to do and would rather not get in an edit war with this person. More eyes on the situation please. -- Brangifer ( talk) 14:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This IP is removing uncited content [3] some of it correct just unreferenced. Not sure if I should revert? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The diffs I reviewed showed that the editor was removing uncited content that has been tagged for a long period of time, and not fixed. If you want to revert the edit and provide a source for the information, that is fine. Reverting the removal of unsourced content goes against WP:V:
This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation
Both the fact tags and the removal of the content are example of challenges to the material. Remember that Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. It would be better if the IP editor would search for a source for the information, rather than just remove the challenged information, but then again, no editor has come forward with a source for quite awhile. DigitalC ( talk) 18:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a PDF with a fiqure from 1903 that I would like to use on wikipedia. I wanted to know if someone could help me extract the image from the PDF and clean the image up (removing any grain, etc)? Regardless, thank you all for the help in the past. --- kilbad ( talk) 20:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Immunize ( contribs) has been creating new unreferenced medical articles and has been making unreferenced additions to existing medical articles. I have been trying to get this user to cite sources, but he is reluctant to take my advice. Also, the user's grammar and punctuation need help. I simply cannot keep up with this user's edits and I also am nowhere near an expert in the topics in which he is contributing. Can someone take a look at this person's edits? Regards, PDCook ( talk) 15:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
My apologies.However,I still do not understand how much a contribution has to be in your own words.If you respond,do it on your own talk page after posting a talkback template on my user.Thank you. Immunize ( talk) 23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Why have you not responded? Immunize ( talk) 17:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
In spite of the fact that chiropractic high cervical neck manipulation has been strongly associated with VAD, strokes, and deaths, a recent addition on that subject was reverted. I have to agree that the German study isn't the best one because its language/translation is confusing and it includes numerous examples not performed by chiropractors. It does, quite correctly, show that the technique itself, not the practitioner, is problematic. It is only noted so often in connection with chiropractic because they perform most cervical neck manipulations.
The article is merely a stub and needs development. This was the only mention of chiropractic, which is the most common cause of VAD in persons under 45 years of age, with a 500% increased risk of VAD among those who have visited a chiropractor within 1 week of the VBA. A California study found a 600% increased risk.
I have collected a number of sources in this somewhat sensationalistic blog entry. Rather than gettting bogged down in my rhetoric (except the short introduction, which should be read), look carefully at the sources and see if some of them can be used to develop the subject. More here:
More eyes needed. The stub needs to be developed, and cervical manipulation needs be mentioned as an important risk factor. -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
.The multidisciplinary, international Task Force led by Prof Scott Haldeman from the University of California in Irvine and in L.A., involved more than 50 researchers based in 9 countries and represented 14 different clinical and scientific disciplines in 8 universities. The group assembled the best international research data on neck pain and related disorders – specifically more than 31,000 research citations with subsequent analysis of over 1,000 studies – making this monumental document one of the most extensive reports on the subject of neck pain ever developed, and offering the most current expert perspective on the evidence related to the treatment of neck pain.
Two questions:
A couple of questions arose while reading on MELAS syndrome.
Cheers, -- CopperKettle 16:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Would someone who has more expertise than I please take a look at List of life-threatening diseases and the talk page discussion? Thanks. – ukexpat ( talk) 20:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone might also want to take a look at List of causes of fever and List of causes of unexplained weight loss as well. PDCook ( talk) 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Midazolam is up for good article review. Quite an important benzodiazepine for hospital use and emergency control of seizures. Comments are welcome.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Should unique redirects for disease synonyms (like Mallorca acne --> Acne aestivalis) have a WPMED banner on the talk page, perhaps with a new "redirect" parameter, as there is already a "category" parameter (see Category talk:Cutaneous conditions for example). I think there may be utility in seeing unique redirects within the scope of a project or task force. If WPMED banners on unique redirect pages is not recommended, perhaps you could share your rational. --- kilbad ( talk) 03:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
|class=Redirect |importance=NA
("NA" means "not an article"; if you don't set this, then the banner may assume it).
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
03:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
|class=Disambig |importance=NA
.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Added
[5] — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
10:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I added the class to Template:Class mask/templatepage that transcludes onto the Template:WPMED/class page and then shows onto the banner if "redirect" is typed after class=. There appears to be 221 redirect article talk pages that are currently labeled with this box. I performed a test edit here Talk:Mallorca acne. These edits can be undone if it is decided to not proceed with this idea. Calmer Waters 10:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to announce the creation of a new Toxicology task force. I'm finishing up some of the last setup steps, and am just waiting for admin assistance to modify the {{ WPMED}} template. After that, we'll need to create project banners, userbox templates, etc. and start tagging and assessing articles for the project. Looking forward to working with you ... Jrtayloriv ( talk) 04:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Have a discussion on what should be the correct name for an article. Should it be Dizzy (medicine) or Dizziness? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Recently, all articles regarding the 2009 flu pandemic by continent was moved by Immunize. I don't know if consensus needs it to be moved, but I reverted it before when TouLouse made the same thing. This day, Immunize moved all articles. A closing admin on 2009 flu pandemic in Europe's requested moved (moving back from 2009-2010 name to its 2009 original name) noted that the disease came up by 2009, so there is nothing worthy to call it "2009-2010". Any opinion? (Should somebody voted these to be back in their original names?) Thanks.-- JL 09 q?c 14:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
While trying to find the appropriate categories by symptom (for example: category:difficulty breathing, or category:confusion, or category:pain), I found some web sites which provide symptom checkers. [1] [2] [3] Is a kind editor willing to work on such an article? I would be happy to help out, but this is not my field, and I do not feel good about working solo outside my comfort zone. Thank you, -- Ancheta Wis ( talk) 08:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Lokal Profil has updated a bunch of maps based on a newer data set (2004 rather than 2002) [8]. Have added some but help to update the rest would be appreciated. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This user [9] continues to add EL to a blog [10] despite being asked not too. Extra eyes would be helpful. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
User Doc James has been and is the source of many conflicts with many users when it comes to editing. As far as I understand, Wikipedia is opened to any contribution, as long as relevant and verifiable. He has the tendency to believe he has the power to decide alone what is suitable and what is not. A non-spamming, relevant link shouldn't be removed without previously discussion, indeed Wikipidia is not Doc Jamespedia, I am myself a doctor but have the humility not to pretend to detain the ultimate truth. Greetings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.41.189 ( talk) 05:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry in this rubrique "what links to consider" I really don't see in what the ones i submited are considered spam. Anyways, Wikipedia has been critizised for it's value, now I realize why, it's ruled by a small number of people that decide what is authority.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seixal5673 ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Another IP is adding further links [11] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This article could use a look over. It appears to be your typical long term malingering article- while real medical viewpoints are included noting that there is no evidence it exists, they naturally aren't the focus of the article. Several puff pieces also exist on organizations promoting (compensation for) the supposed syndrome. Nevard ( talk) 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I have reviewed Dental caries for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article and help it maintain its GA status. Please comment there to help resolve the raised issues. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear all,
I’ve been trying to help folks who were trying to articulate the latest knowledge on Perception article, but my suggestions did not help much. On top of that, some little egos managed to erode even that little clarity we had.
I have decided, therefore, to simply rewrite the article on the basis of currently available knowledge in the following disciplines: cognitive and developmental psychology, medicine (especially genetics), philosophy and complex (adaptive) systems theory with emphasised references to non-monotonic logics. I am contemplating few other disciplines, but these will suffice for the beginning.
I have drafted the lead into the article and the draft can be found on the related discussion page. I am calling now for comments and contributions backed by the latest science and the latest contemporary philosophical thought. My only condition is clarity and brevity wherever possible. If you find other possible references, they will be welcomed too.
Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic ( talk) 21:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
...is a Good Article nominee..if anyone wants to review it. if it isn't picked up soon but I am trying to do a few older ones first. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Viral pharyngitis looks rather neglected, especially for such a common condition. Is there perhaps a merge target that we've overlooked, or does it just need some volunteers to give it some loving attention? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Why are some task forces in bold, and others not? Can we un-bold all of them? --- kilbad ( talk) 01:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I want to make an article to complement the list of cutaneous conditions, perhaps something that will combine the content of skin disease and skin lesion, with an overall goal to provide a fuller discussion on cutaneous conditions as a whole. What would you name such an article? I was thinking simply "cutaneous conditions." What do you think? --- kilbad ( talk) 13:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
We've got some confusion about Reticuloendotheliosis. Here we say that it's a (any) lymphoma of the reticuloendothelial system; then it's redirected to a specific neoplastic disease, Leukemic reticuloendotheliosis (ignoring other uses, such as non-lipid reticuloendotheliosis, which is an older name for Histiocytosis); finally, it has been redirected to a fungal infection of the lungs (possibly a corruption of "reticuloendothelial cytomycosis").
The original citation is to MeSH, where it has recently been replaced by "Lymphatic Diseases". There also seems to be a Reticuloendotheliosis virus, which causes neoplastic disease in birds.
I've always seen this term used in the context of neoplastic disease; does anyone else know of other uses? Should we make this a disambiguation page, or revert to the neoplastic disease (which appears to be the most widespread use of this uncommon term). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This section in the Sugar substitute article is troubling in its use of speculative and dubious research by Olney, who is a well-known enemy of aspartame and friend of Betty Martini, the major promoter of the aspartame hoax (see the Aspartame controversy article). Some expert eyes are needed to analyze that paragraph with an eye to using MEDRS sources and for balance. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Since the FDA approved aspartame for consumption, some researchers have suggested that a rise in brain tumor rates in the United States may be at least partially related to the increasing availability and consumption of aspartame.[9] Some research, often supported by companies producing artificial sweeteners, has failed to find any link between aspartame and cancer or other health problems.[10] Recent research showed a clear link between this substance and cancer; leading some experts to call for the FDA to pull aspartame from the market.[11][12] This research has led the Center for Science in the Public Interest to classify aspartame as a substance to be avoided in its Chemical Cuisine Directory.[13] However, the EFSA's press release about the study,[14] published on 5 May 2006, concluded that the increased incidence of lymphomas/leukaemias reported in treated rats was unrelated to aspartame, the kidney tumors found at high doses of aspartame were not relevant to humans, and that based on all available scientific evidence to date, there was no reason to revise the previously established Acceptable Daily Intake levels for aspartame.[15]
This is the case: A. Rad made this brilliant hematopoiesis image a couple of years ago in a vector software, but it could only be exported to raster format, so we couldn't have a vector version. Still, Spacebirdy successfully uploaded an Icelandic vector version of it, but hasn't got time to upload the original English vector version. It is fully editable in Inkscape, but it is so large that it slows down my computer (with AMD Athlon 2.6 GHz dual-core processor & Vista) too much to conveniently label it. So, is there anybody with either a "vector png" to svg converter or a faster computer (or a faster svg-editor) that can label this one? Mikael Häggström ( talk) 06:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This section on the talk page of the Vaccination article was started by an apparent doubter of the efficacy of vaccinations. The editor had been placing tags without any discussion, so I removed the tag with the request that they discuss, and now they have created the section and the matter needs discussion. The request is polite and reasonable. It is odd that the article doesn't provide this proof. To medical personnel this is as fundamental a matter of common knowledge as the fact that the Earth is round, but we can't therefore leave proofs out of that article! Even doubters deserve some education in basic medical facts. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I have just created and made live articles on the extinct species Trypanosoma antiquus and its vector Triatoma dominicana, described in 2005 from specimens in dominican amber. These species are the oldest example of this vector pairing described to date. I would appreciate if the articles could be assesed, wordsmithed, and proofed. Thanks. -- Kevmin ( talk) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
A number of editors have been adding content to articles such as constipation and thyroid, using edit summaries with claims like "adding verifiable content". Of course the content added is not properly sourced, and I would advise all WikiProject members to scrutinise these edits when encountered. JFW | T@lk 21:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Struck comments, the source on the talk page citing psychosis was from the 1920's, the source given in the article is to a medical university and appears to be recent, so nevermind. :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I just found this article is some search results. Would any object if I redirected this to the list of cutaneous conditions? --- kilbad ( talk) 01:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I strongly object to a redirect to list of cutaneous conditions. Although the list of cutaneous conditions is more comprehensive, it does not cover systemic diseases with cutaneous manifestations, while the list of causes of cutaneous abnormalities does cover such diseases. Regards. Immunize ( talk) 14:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Chronic fatigue syndrome websites have been abuzz following the October 2009 report in Science suggesting xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) as the potential cause of CFS. Recently, this buzz has included statements that the US Department of Health and Human Services is planning to screen the blood supply for XMRV (with the implication that the US government agrees that some form of disease causation has been established). However, causation has not yet been established, the association of the virus (with prostate cancer and with CFS) remains uncertain and the US government has made no statements on the matter. An editor at the XMRV page has proposed a paragraph on blood safety based upon statements made by a CFS advocacy group and by a doctor in a court transcript. I have opposed this addition as premature (until a government agency makes a statement, preferably reported in the media) and as not satisfying MEDRS. What's the best way to proceed? Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 21:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) In the verbal preamble which is recorded on the video at the HHS site he does state that "This statement has been coordinated throughout the entire HHS public health services." [My transcription] and the nature of the audience committee, indicates that this was a veted announcement. I was suggesting something like (see [16]):
As to HHC vs HHS -- sorry, it was a typo it should have read HHS: he is speaking on behalf of the HHS; that's my point -- I am a Brit and I get confused by your acronyms the way that you do with ours: DWP, NHS, NICE, etc. :) TerryE ( talk) 03:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Originally this discussion was started for the proposed wording and sources below: [17]
"Dr. Jerry Holmberg of the DHHS OPHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability stated at the CFSAC meeting on 30 Oct 2009 that, because studies have now associated XMRV with prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome, the committee will investigate the blood safety threat from XMRV. [18] [19] A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Blood XMRV Scientific Research Working Group has been formed according to the Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome Association of America, and included in the planned investigations are validation studies for XMRV testing, evaluation of the incidence of XMRV in the populace and blood supply (including subgroups), XMRV transmission studies, and human disease associations. [20]" I don't have objections to condense to approximately the wording LeadSongDog proposed. I believe there are enough RS's to justify a NPOV mention in the article. Ward20 ( talk) 07:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Can we continue this discussion on the XMRV talkpage? JFW | T@lk 12:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
For any cutaneous condition, there may be (though certainly not always) different subtypes or variants. Take lichen planus for example, which has many subtypes and variants, or squamous cell carcinoma, which also has multiple subtypes, like mucosal squamous cell carcinoma.
Therefore, for the most complicated cases, you might have something like:
Currently, I have been trying to list the main condition name as well as the specific subtypes/variants, hence squamous cell carcinoma and mucosal squamous cell carcinoma both being in the list of cutaneous conditions.
However, here are some questions I wanted to get the community's opinion on. Right now, subtypes/variants are simply listed in alphabetical order, independent of the main condition. For example, mucosal squamous cell carcinoma is not listed under squamous cell carcinoma. However, should it be? Should we be indenting subtypes/variants under the main condition? What are the pros and cons of that?
Also, going with that, should the various subtypes/variants have their own stub, or be redirected to the main condition article? In general, I have been making stubs, though there are times when simply a redirect exists, as with mucosal squamous cell carcinoma. What do you think is best?
Thanks in advance for your comments! --- kilbad ( talk) 04:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I've started to develop a comprehensive template or guideline for drug articles over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Guideline. The idea here is to follow WP:MEDMOS, but provide something a little bit more in depth to so someone has something a bit better to create an article about a drug. Comments on this are welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Guideline. WTF? ( talk) 23:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Would someone consider moving the two articles:
Most of the sources I have do not use the dash. --- kilbad ( talk) 03:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
User continue to add content tagged with "added verifiable content". [21] Most of it is wrong. Is there any way to search these comments to look for more similar edits? It appears that the person adding this creates a new account each time. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I just no article for testicular implants. Is there someone who has knowledge of this area, or feels like doing some basic research? It seems to me that this is a fairly important topic to have an article on. I'll get around to it later, if nobody else does, once I've wrapped up some other projects I'm currently working on. Thanks -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 22:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Can others please have a look at Talk:Spectrum (psychiatry), which was recently moved from Spectrum disorder, to determine if the article is well named? Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is nearly 600 pages of health data and graphs from the CDC [24] Could be used to illustrate a number of pages. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Vitamin C/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 23:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I want to start developing the cutaneous conditions article, which is currently a real mess. With that being said, I wanted to know if some of you would help me outline the structure of the article. My overall goal is to provide a fuller discussion on cutaneous conditions as a whole, and to merge in all the smaller articles on the different skin lesions ( macule, bulla, etc) and a lot of the other terms in the Category:Dermatologic terminology and Category:Dermatologic signs. I am not asking anyone to write the actual article (unless you want to!), but simply to help me develop a good working article structure for a future FA. Anyone willing to help me outline? --- kilbad ( talk) 22:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Action potential for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Pyrrhus 16 18:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Should we link to a site that gives an exhaustive differential in the disease box / symptom box? DiagnosisPro looks like a good candidate? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Could someone generate a properly formated inline citation for this book? I am having problems with diberri's tool. --- kilbad ( talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
User:LeadSongDog come howl 05:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)<Affiliation>University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. larrycha@uic.edu</Affiliation> <AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"> <Author ValidYN="Y"> <LastName>Chan</LastName> <ForeName>Lawrence S</ForeName> <Initials>LS</Initials> </Author> </AuthorList>
Our WP:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts page said:
I overlooked it at the time. Do we have this? Do we want to have this? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Would someone review the dash type used with the synonyms for the above syndrome?? I am not sure, but should an em dash be used? --- kilbad ( talk) 03:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI, several HIV/AIDS categories have come up for renaming, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 23. 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 06:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I see that currently meningococcemia redirects to Meningococcal disease. However, I feel that it would be more appropriate to redirect meningococcemia to Meningoccal septicaemia, as meningococcemia refers to meningococcal bacteremia. I was about to do it myself, but thought it would be better to get consensus for the change here first, as it would be a major change. Immunize ( talk) 21:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Done.
Immunize (
talk)
21:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
PDCook ( talk) 17:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I still do not completely understand mergers. Although I am aware that the histories of both pages are combined, it has often seemed to me that very little of the smaller article remains. Immunize ( talk) 22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you think this images has a chance to become a featured photo? I have never tried for a featured photo nomination? --- kilbad ( talk) 03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Have cleaned up / organized the requested article page. Have added a lead giving instruction on how this page should be used. Any comments / improvement proposals for the instructions? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Please comment and help create a consensus version at Talk:Alternative_medicine#RfC:_Proposed_new_section_.22Alternative_medicine_as_mainstream.22. Thanks. -- Brangifer ( talk) 15:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Can someone who may have some knowledge in the area please take a look at AllergoOncology something about it strikes me as being very shady and fringe like. I could be totally wrong though. Ridernyc ( talk) 17:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it does seem to be a fringe theory. I myself have not heard of it, so I cannot completely discredit the article, but it is unreferenced, and unless some reliable references are added soon I may nominate it for deletion. Immunize ( talk) 20:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, the user who created it, Ejense32, made only 1 edit-creating the page in question, which makes me question the articles accuracy even more. Best wishes. Immunize ( talk) 20:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)I have nominated it for deletion for that reason. Immunize ( talk) 20:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Announcing an RfC at Talk:Ghost#RfC:_Context_of_NSF_statement_about_belief_in_ghosts. The questions being discussed are:
1. Whether the National Science Foundation is a reliable source for stating that "belief in ghosts and spirits" are " pseudoscientific beliefs".
2. Whether their expressions can be considered to represent the current scientific consensus (in the USA) on that subject.
See you there! -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys. I was looking at the Nuss procedure article and noticed many changes since my last edit, not backed up with any references for the most part. I'm still behind in school and can't comb through it anytime soon. If someone can get to it before me, would you please check [30] and remove the non-referenced text. If not, I should be able to get at it next month. Thanks, 174.102.83.126 ( talk) ( §hep (logged out) 01:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the
GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at
Talk:Stem cell/GA1. The article appears to contain many copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are addressed. Thanks.
Jezhotwells (
talk) 21:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Jezhotwells (
talk)
21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Prion/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Is Google health an reliable source? I am just wondering as I have cited google health in a number of my lists, and in the event that google health is not reliable, I may have to change the sources of some of my additions. Immunize ( talk) 23:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I am redirecting Category:Infections of the skin and subcutaneous tissue to Category:Infection-related cutaneous conditions, but I want to do so such that the Category:Infections of the skin and subcutaneous tissue is not itself categorized. Restated, when I look at the Category:Infection-related cutaneous conditions, I do not want want "Infections of the skin and subcutaneous tissue" listed. Any ideas? --- kilbad ( talk) 17:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
This user 70.19.167.177 ( talk · contribs) is linking dermpedia [31] to a lot of pages. It is a similar site to Wikipedia. Anyway to roll all of them back? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I PRODed the Scott Rasgon (chief of nephrology at Kaiser Permanente in Los Angeles) article some time ago. It was dePRODed, rewritten somewhat, and two of Dr. Rasgon's papers were added (he is 1st author on a paper cited 50 or so times, and 5th author on a paper cited 150 or so times). However, I can't find any reliable sources that would generally satisfy WP:BIO. Do folks think he passes WP:ACADEMIC with his papers? I'm more familiar with applying ACADEMIC to professors rather than practicing physicians. Thanks, PDCook ( talk) 21:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Has not found by myself, dunno where else to ask: are there any contraindications for undergoing MRI\CT with contrast for a person suspected of having a mitochondrial disorder? Say, MELAS - is it O.K. to have MELAS and go to a MRI scan with contrast agent, wouldnt it cause any complications?-- CopperKettle 16:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I have placed a request for expert attention to the above article, and am alerting the associated Wikiprojects for Psychology and Medicine. A reader has raised a serious concern about the article and I think it would be very useful to have someone with expertise in the area improve its quality. Any help much appreciated.
I also think the article's current B-class rating by this project is questionable. There are whole sections totally without references, which I don't believe satisifies this B-class criterion: "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited." I also removed some stupid, week-old vandalism from the article - it could use more eyes. Gonzonoir ( talk) 09:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
In the article, it says that Function of this reflex is to maintain a constant length. But in Improvement in Linearity and Regulation of Stiffness That Results from Actions of Stretch Reflex, Nichols and Houk, 1976 Journal of Neurophysiology, they shows that the purpose of stretch reflex is not to maintain constant length but instead constant stiffness. -- Ml2000id ( talk) 06:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
See Template talk:PMCID for details. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
There's a request for a simple image at Talk:Xiphoid_process#Picture. The page has mostly close-up images, and some readers clicking through from another page seem uncertain about what general part of the body this small bone is in. A human chest with an arrow has been suggested. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Hope you are all doing fine, I want somebody to review this diagram that I created relating to cystic fibrosis and check of I did any mistakes, so I can correct them, thank you all MaenK.A. Talk 13:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed that the above page was recently recreated. Seems like someone from WP:MED should probably take a look. Yilloslime T C 22:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to make sure that what I'm doing represents community consensus, because I've already reverted a couple of times on a couple of pages. Currently, an editor at 75.85.14.10x is adding references to a grid project to Dengue fever [32] [33], Muscular dystrophy [34], and proposing same at Talk:AIDS [35] [36]. While these grid projects are laudable, the additions are not encyclopedic. I've tried to make it clear that I mean no disrespect to the grid project but rather have to respect the fact that WP is not a place to promote any cause. If others disagree with my actions, I'm listening. If you agree, then I'd appreciate it if others would weigh in so this doesn't come off as my own personal vendetta. My hope is there might even be a guideline specifically related to these grid projects, because this comes up from time to time. -- Scray ( talk) 13:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The article regarding the pseudoscientific practice of craniosacral therapy needs attention. Take this one example:
This uses a dubious source admittedly "Self-published online, September 2005. http://www.hummingbird-one.co.uk/pdf/sbs_simplified.pdf"
I think the whole article needs to be checked for violations of MEDRS. -- Brangifer ( talk) 18:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I find the Healthy diet article to be extremely biased in that it only lists recommendations from the World Health Organization and nothing else. I tried to add a section about the Paleolithic diet but my edits were reverted by a vandal. Evolutionary medicine is credible and should be given more attention than it currently is. Instead of citing special interest lobbyist-funded beauracratic government agencies we should cite other sources too. Mac520 ( talk) 04:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Sources: http://www.paleonu.com/ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/
I'd like to work on this article, because it's important and seems relatively abandoned. However, I don't have a lot of experience with heavy content editing, so I'm a little overwhelmed. Could someone either look it over and give me a hand or give me suggestions on where to start? Thanks, Annalise ( talk) 14:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Please review this version 'cause I'm editing and damned tempted to simply remove the section in question. Unless I'm missing or using the wrong search term, the results in google scholar are less than promising, pointing to publication mainly by a single scholar (Sloop), with one in the luminary vessel of Medical Hypotheses. Regular google doesn't do much better with wikipedia being the first link to show up. Google books is even worse with zero hits. The section itself looks like a lot of primary sources that are synthesized to produce a significant section of original research. Does this theory carry any currency in the medical community, or is it a fringe theory with no mainstream acceptance? I'm very tempted to simply excise the whole section citing WP:SOAP. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 18:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate any outside input at Talk:Medical Hypotheses. I have some concerns about edits which one user is repeatedly reinserting. In particular, I believe that the article makes fundamentally erroneous statements about the causes of sudden infant death syndrome. I'd prefer not to get into a two-person back-and-forth, and I may be off-base, so any outside input would be helpful. MastCell Talk 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I proposed a few new list sections/categories at Talk:List_of_cutaneous_conditions#Additional_sections_.2F_categories. Perhaps I could get some feedback there? --- kilbad ( talk) 20:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Zoophilic (not to be confused with zoophilia) has a transwiki tag. Should the stub be kept? Is there more to say? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that the Liver cancer article appears to have information on both Benign and Malignant Hepatic tumors, which I feel is incorrect, as the inclusion of the word "cancer" into the articles title suggests that only malignant hepatic tumors should be discussed in the article. I feel the text on benign hepatic tumors should be removed from that article. However, we need to discuss the benign liver tumors (such as the Hemangiomas, nodular regeneritive hyperplasia, and hepatic adenomas) somewhere on Wikipedia, I suggest the creation of a new article on benign liver tumors. Best wishes. Immunize ( talk) 14:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
So you agreee the text on benign liver tumors should be removed? Immunize ( talk) 14:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the section on benign liver tumors on the article in question, but the problem remains that we need some article to cover these benign hepatic tumors. Looking at the histroy of the redirect Liver tumor, it appears that Jmh649 ( talk · contribs) redirected the page to liver cancer on February 17, 2010. What should the next step for this article be? Immunize ( talk) 15:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Done I have restored the page
Liver tumor and redirected the page
Liver cancer to
Liver tumor. However, there was more content in the
Liver cancer page than there is currently on the
Liver tumor page.
Immunize (
talk)
15:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I see that another user has already resotored the lost content on the page Liver cancer and added it into the page Liver tumor, and has added the information on benign lesions back into the Liver tumor article. Immunize ( talk) 15:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the word "primary" in at least some sections of the article, as it implies that the article deals with liver metastasis, which it does not. I hope for improving this article to Good-article or possibly even featured article status. Immunize ( talk) 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I have redirected liver tumors to liver tumor, but I think we should move liver tumor to liver tumors, and reverse the redirect, what do you think?? MaenK.A. Talk 16:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Liver tumor should be moved to liver tumors. Immunize ( talk) 17:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Support for renaming article Liver tumors withdrawn. Immunize ( talk) 20:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I added an ionizing radiation-related section. Then I switched "-related" to "-induced." Which do you prefer? Also, any additional feedback is, as always, greatly appreciated. --- kilbad ( talk) 17:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Please weigh in there. This is just an announcement. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have created a new section on eosinophilic skin conditions and wanted to know if someone would create stubs for the four redlinks in the section? --- kilbad ( talk) 00:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Another editor has been granted permission to use dermatology photos from a couple other sites (see my talk page for details). I want to know if we are cleared to start importing all those photos from those sites. Again, see the bottom of my talk page for details. --- kilbad ( talk) 14:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Can someone discuss the BODE score in the prognosis section of COPD, or as an independent article please. Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnielsen7222 ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Could someone create a stub on Eczematid-like purpura of Doucas and Kapetanakis? Thanks in advance! --- kilbad ( talk) 23:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Anyone have any views on how to sort this section out? Mirtazapine#Indications I am tempted to do mass deleting but I don't know enough about the drug to know what are notable off-label uses and what is improper use of primary sources. It has been sitting in this state for months, maybe a year or more.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Just came across Category:Medical research and Category:Clinical research, I know that these terms were merged for this project in the days before time, was wondering if these cats should be merged too - or am I missing a distinction between them ? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
For info, there is a request to move (change the name of)
Allopathic medicine. See
Talk:Allopathic medicine#Requested move. --
Red King (
talk)
19:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I attempted to add my Username to the list of participants of Wikiproject medicine, but despite my edit, which added my username to the list, I failed to be displayed on the list. Any help would be appreciated. Immunize ( talk) 22:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi All I ve been granted a permission from the owner of this site dermnet.com Dr.Thomas Habif to use any image on his site under the common creative attribution share alike 3.0 license, so we need Ideas how to import theses picture, or whom to consult for ideas on importing such a big amount of pictures, thank you all MaenK.A. Talk 07:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I am very excited at the prospect of adding many of these images to Wikipedia, and I think they will be a valuable addition for our general readers. However, I do have a few follow-up questions/comments. First, with regard to permissions, I would still like to see a correspondence from someone from dermnet.com, Dr. Habif or whoever, expressly stating that we can use any/all the photos under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. I have e-mailed support@dermnet.com twice, and have yet to hear back myself on the issue. Maybe someone else can try contacting them as well? Also, perhaps someone at OTRS should be activity involved with this donation to make sure we are doing everything appropriately/legally. Second, with regard to patient consent, what it our actual Wikipedia policy/consensus on this matter? This issue has never been clear to me. Does a patient's "consent to be photographed" have to be indicated somewhere on the Wikipedia/Commons file page? If so, is there a specific form we should be using with he patient? What does/will this mean for photos in which that information is not provided? Finally, dovetailing off that, what is our Wikipedia policy/consensus regarding identifiable aspects of medical images? Many of us have uploaded images from different sources (ourselves, the CDC, etc), all with different degrees of identifiableness (examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Sometimes we use a censoring black box, sometimes we do not. Sometimes we include the face, other times we do not. I suggest, if there is no clear consensus on this latter issue, perhaps (once we get proper permission) we could still copy all the photos over to Wikipedia, and then edit/delete photos over time as consensus develops? Alright, just a few thoughts. --- kilbad ( talk) 04:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have contacted Dr.Frank Gaillard who is the CEO of the Radiopaedia site, and asked him to give me permission to upload images from radiopedia, he accepted that, and volunteered to upload them him self, but the I found his talk page on commons and found this, then I asked him if we could upload images under this license, he accepted this offer but had some requests that should be done whenever we upload a picture from his site:
So we need a list for images uploaded by Dr.Frank to radiopedia that we need here at wikipedia, so that we inform him, and then upload those images, any one wants to help with that?? here is the full listing of cases uploaded by Dr.Frank MaenK.A. Talk 17:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Regard this edit, if the disambiguation page is referring to multiple conditions that could all be considered part of the same category, could we not keep the Category:Palmoplantar keratodermas? I am not an expert on dab pages. --- kilbad ( talk) 21:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Concerned editors might want to take a look at this discussion before it gets completely out of hand. Specifically, it's a debate about whether the article on rheumatoid arthritis should mention links between diets and RA, and which sources are necessary and/or sufficient for drawing such a connection. Gabbe ( talk) 07:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I did not find any articles on medical discography so I started one at User:Stillwaterising/Discogram. I'm unsure of how to title it. Should it be a general article on all discography like discogram or specific like lumbar provocative discography or maybe discography (medical)? Any help would be appreciated. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 04:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been looking at WPMED's enormous cleanup listing. We've got some three-year-old merge proposals on the list. Would everyone please look over these, and try to do your bit?
For example, I'm sure that someone here will know whether those two anatomy articles are the same thing. If they're different, then getting them off our list just involves removing the tags from the articles (and, if you want, from the list here and/or at the cleanup listing). I just merged a pair of stubs; it took less than ten minutes. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Could use some WP:3O (see Talk:Amygdalin). DMacks ( talk) 10:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, this user did this to the article, the edit is referenced, but am wondering if we can relay on these references?? thank you MaenK.A. Talk 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Are tuberculid and tuberculide synonymous? Same with syphilid and syphilide... If so, what is the origin of the extra "e"? --- kilbad ( talk) 02:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Somebody spammed the List of circulatory system conditions to a bunch of articles back in January. I've removed it from a couple of dozen articles on hematological malignancies, but I think someone else needs to figure out which of these anemias are really 'circulatory' and which are not really cardiovascular diseases. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I have a question about how to determine the axis of a 12-lead ECG. In brief, I would like to know the correct method (if there is one) for determining which lead is most isoelectric (or equiphasic). [If this is a disputed topic, then please elaborate on all points of view expressed by reliable sources; if there is only one correct method, then please cite to the sources (preferably at least one textbook and at least one online).] Thanks. Bwrs ( talk) 04:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The above very-welcome opportunities raise the issue of consent by the subject of the photo to appear on Wikipedia. It is one thing for the copyright owner to willingly donate images to Wikipedia or to Commons, but permission is still required from any identifiable subject. Have a look at our Model release article and the Patient images essay on Commons (see also the talk page: I feel this essay is inadequate and will probably comment over there). Look also at [43], [44], [45], [46] which are just a few of the Google results for "clinical photography consent]. Here's some findings:
I think, especially given the volume of images involved, we should take legal advice from Wikipedia's legal team. Colin° Talk 12:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have emailed Mike Godwin. Colin° Talk 13:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) So it looks like we're dealing with 1552 images by Frank Gaillard? Those come on 17 pages and each image has a unique ID number. If no one objects let's start a subpage for review. Durova 412 19:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I think there are two separate issues with Patient images: (1) legal issues, and (2) ethical issues.
I too can make guesses but like Collin points out, we need (legal) facts rather than opinions. -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 21:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
So, we have an e-mail from Dr. Habif, stating the following:
To permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ http://www.dermnet.com/ ]. I agree to publish that work under the free license [ Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 ]. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. March 11 2010, Thomas Habif, MD
Therefore, my question: does this suffice for copyright holder permission to use all images on dermnet? If so, can we get a general OTRS ticket number to use with all these images? --- kilbad ( talk) 17:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Please comment. See: Talk:HIV#HIV_Risk_Table Phoenix of9 00:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the template at the end of the page [51] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_Mullerian_duct_syndrome] be
MALE Congenital malformations and deformations of sex organs
instead of
Female Congenital malformations and deformations of sex organs
or maybe both? "Female" tissue in a "male" person would be a male Congenital malformations and deformations of sex organs in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.59.37 ( talk) 16:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping one or more of would be so kind as to take a look at the new article on Combined Small Cell Lung Carcinoma. I know it still needs some work and cleanup, which I hope to get around to in the next week or so. I would also try to address any suggestions you ladies and gentlemen might have during this period of time. Thank you all in advance.
Best regards: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS DDF 03:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uploadvirus ( talk • contribs)
Hi, I created two other alternatives to this template, those are here and here, any suggestions?? or approval to use a new one?? MaenK.A. Talk 16:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated alcoholism for good article status, anyone who would like to give the article a once over and fix any remaining issues or pass comments or suggestions would be appreciated. A few references need to be put into inline citations which I will hopefully be able to do tomorrow while the article is waiting in the queue, unless someone does it before me. ;-)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me if this has already been canvassed here (and Wales' talk page may not be the most appropriate forum) but may I draw your attention to this suggestion? Anthony ( talk) 09:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC) To be clear: I have no interest in the above discussion re HIV infection rates. On the face of it, this question about higher standards, if it hasn't already been dealt with, deserves consideration on its own merits. Anthony ( talk) 10:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
#random-subject
– they already are and many editors (with more qualifications in the subject than I have) are working to keep it that way.
Physchim62
(talk)
19:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)I had in mind the outright banning of primary sources from medical articles. I cannot imagine a circumstance when it would be okay for an article to present evidence supported only by primary sources. And if they were banned this type of time-wasting would be avoided, and there would be no opening for synthesis. Anthony ( talk) 20:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Stillwaterising, that the introductions in some primary research papers provide useful independent summaries of a field, and have no problem seeing them used in an article, but the paper's results, and the author's interpretation of them should wait for an independent review. As for examples of sources I find unacceptable, pick anything that's not a peer-reviewed independent summary, a systematic review or a recent university-level textbook. I don't trust myself, let alone you, to cherry pick primary research. (No reflection on you, by the way. I have no idea who you are, but that's the point.) And I like the idea of erasing all poorly sourced assertions in medical articles. But it looks like I'm alone here, so I bow to the wisdom of the majority. Anthony ( talk) 23:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody know how to get free access to research articles through ScienceDirect or other services? The only two things I can think of are either to find a terminal in a university library with an online subscription or ask with them directly to give out a complimentary subscription as a Wikipedia editor. Any thoughts? - Stillwaterising ( talk) 20:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
I added a couple photos of this condition. Would some of you be willing to help me beef this article up? --- kilbad ( talk) 21:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the article should be tagged for this project. The lede seems POV in that these are largely untested and unregulated chemicals used recreationally and known to cause medical problems yet the article seems to glow about how harmless they are. Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 19:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
This article has been held hostage by a very lengthy (since 2006) edit war mostly between two editors, TraceyR (believer) and Rhode Island Red (skeptic). This situation is untenable and the deadlock can probably only be broken with consistent input from more editors, especially nutrionists and other interested medical personnel. More eyes please. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
..are there any lipid metabolism disorders that may present as a mild case of diabetes that is aggravated by lipid intake? Or any case of diabetes? -- CopperKettle 16:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Can images from a 1902 derm paper be uploaded onto Wikipedia as far as copyright goes? See User_talk:Kilbad#The_nosology_of_parapsoriasis_PDF for more details regarding this question. --- kilbad ( talk) 23:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Listing this here to get more eyes on this. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey all, I decided to raise this concern here because the contributors to this WikiProject would probably have the most experience dealing with articles that inch too close to crossing the line between articles on medical topics and giving medical advice. I invite you to take a look at this section of the TMJ syndrome article and comment about what you think. To me, it seems like a "how-to" guide to treating a medical condition, which is basically giving medical advice, right? However, I'm a little too inexperienced in this area to be bold and just remove or rewrite the whole section, so I was hoping for ideas. The talk page of the article itself is pretty much dead, so I brought this issue here instead of there. I will, however, link to this discussion there, so interested contributors can make their way here. -- Nick— Contact/ Contribs 04:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The article contains some dubious and unsourced medical information as well as peacock terminology. More eyes please. -- Brangifer ( talk) 06:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Are there policies out there regarding how disease synonyms are cited? I think when a disease synonym is included in an article, it should have it's own citation so someone can verify where it has come from. When there are multiple synonyms, I think they should each be associated with their own citation, even if they all come from the same source. The reason being that if someone comes along and adds an additional synonym, the sources of the previous ones are not confused. Any thoughts? --- kilbad ( talk) 23:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Additional eyes are needed at Zidovudine, where a strongly opinionated editor with a block history on the article is stating that cancer is a side effect of AZT. The source is a California website. I don't feel that this satisfies our sourcing requirements for medicine, nor do I think it's appropriate to include a paragraph about the purported carcinogenicity of a substance partially responsible for the reduction in AIDS-related cancers. Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 16:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Addition of links to National Institutes of Health GeneReviews. AN/I discussion of relevance to this project. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Would some of you be willing to proofread the WP:DERM dermatology task force pages? I want to get more dermatologists involved, and would like the project pages looking as professional as possible. Regardless, thank you for all your help in the past! --- kilbad ( talk) 22:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a pdf article in French that I would like to use as a source for a dermatology-related article. Is there anyone that could help me translate it? --- kilbad ( talk) 22:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Anyone willing to review? Start, C or B? Just finished writing. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 21:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The emedicine tags do not seem to work in this infobox. Trying to set them up for limp and unable. Anyone know why? Thanks Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
There are a few dermatology-related categories under discussion at: Talk:List_of_cutaneous_conditions#Additional_sections_.7C_categories. As always, feedback is appreciated! --- kilbad ( talk) 17:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
A self-identified chiropractor ( see the edit summary) keeps adding chiropractic and spinal decompression to the article. Spinal manipulation is usually considered a relative contraindication for this condition and spinal decompression machines are the subject of FDA confiscation and prosecution because of the claims made for them in connection with the treatment of this condition. I'm not sure what to do and would rather not get in an edit war with this person. More eyes on the situation please. -- Brangifer ( talk) 14:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This IP is removing uncited content [3] some of it correct just unreferenced. Not sure if I should revert? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The diffs I reviewed showed that the editor was removing uncited content that has been tagged for a long period of time, and not fixed. If you want to revert the edit and provide a source for the information, that is fine. Reverting the removal of unsourced content goes against WP:V:
This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation
Both the fact tags and the removal of the content are example of challenges to the material. Remember that Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. It would be better if the IP editor would search for a source for the information, rather than just remove the challenged information, but then again, no editor has come forward with a source for quite awhile. DigitalC ( talk) 18:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a PDF with a fiqure from 1903 that I would like to use on wikipedia. I wanted to know if someone could help me extract the image from the PDF and clean the image up (removing any grain, etc)? Regardless, thank you all for the help in the past. --- kilbad ( talk) 20:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Immunize ( contribs) has been creating new unreferenced medical articles and has been making unreferenced additions to existing medical articles. I have been trying to get this user to cite sources, but he is reluctant to take my advice. Also, the user's grammar and punctuation need help. I simply cannot keep up with this user's edits and I also am nowhere near an expert in the topics in which he is contributing. Can someone take a look at this person's edits? Regards, PDCook ( talk) 15:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
My apologies.However,I still do not understand how much a contribution has to be in your own words.If you respond,do it on your own talk page after posting a talkback template on my user.Thank you. Immunize ( talk) 23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Why have you not responded? Immunize ( talk) 17:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
In spite of the fact that chiropractic high cervical neck manipulation has been strongly associated with VAD, strokes, and deaths, a recent addition on that subject was reverted. I have to agree that the German study isn't the best one because its language/translation is confusing and it includes numerous examples not performed by chiropractors. It does, quite correctly, show that the technique itself, not the practitioner, is problematic. It is only noted so often in connection with chiropractic because they perform most cervical neck manipulations.
The article is merely a stub and needs development. This was the only mention of chiropractic, which is the most common cause of VAD in persons under 45 years of age, with a 500% increased risk of VAD among those who have visited a chiropractor within 1 week of the VBA. A California study found a 600% increased risk.
I have collected a number of sources in this somewhat sensationalistic blog entry. Rather than gettting bogged down in my rhetoric (except the short introduction, which should be read), look carefully at the sources and see if some of them can be used to develop the subject. More here:
More eyes needed. The stub needs to be developed, and cervical manipulation needs be mentioned as an important risk factor. -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
.The multidisciplinary, international Task Force led by Prof Scott Haldeman from the University of California in Irvine and in L.A., involved more than 50 researchers based in 9 countries and represented 14 different clinical and scientific disciplines in 8 universities. The group assembled the best international research data on neck pain and related disorders – specifically more than 31,000 research citations with subsequent analysis of over 1,000 studies – making this monumental document one of the most extensive reports on the subject of neck pain ever developed, and offering the most current expert perspective on the evidence related to the treatment of neck pain.
Two questions:
A couple of questions arose while reading on MELAS syndrome.
Cheers, -- CopperKettle 16:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Would someone who has more expertise than I please take a look at List of life-threatening diseases and the talk page discussion? Thanks. – ukexpat ( talk) 20:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone might also want to take a look at List of causes of fever and List of causes of unexplained weight loss as well. PDCook ( talk) 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Midazolam is up for good article review. Quite an important benzodiazepine for hospital use and emergency control of seizures. Comments are welcome.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Should unique redirects for disease synonyms (like Mallorca acne --> Acne aestivalis) have a WPMED banner on the talk page, perhaps with a new "redirect" parameter, as there is already a "category" parameter (see Category talk:Cutaneous conditions for example). I think there may be utility in seeing unique redirects within the scope of a project or task force. If WPMED banners on unique redirect pages is not recommended, perhaps you could share your rational. --- kilbad ( talk) 03:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
|class=Redirect |importance=NA
("NA" means "not an article"; if you don't set this, then the banner may assume it).
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
03:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
|class=Disambig |importance=NA
.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Added
[5] — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
10:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I added the class to Template:Class mask/templatepage that transcludes onto the Template:WPMED/class page and then shows onto the banner if "redirect" is typed after class=. There appears to be 221 redirect article talk pages that are currently labeled with this box. I performed a test edit here Talk:Mallorca acne. These edits can be undone if it is decided to not proceed with this idea. Calmer Waters 10:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to announce the creation of a new Toxicology task force. I'm finishing up some of the last setup steps, and am just waiting for admin assistance to modify the {{ WPMED}} template. After that, we'll need to create project banners, userbox templates, etc. and start tagging and assessing articles for the project. Looking forward to working with you ... Jrtayloriv ( talk) 04:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Have a discussion on what should be the correct name for an article. Should it be Dizzy (medicine) or Dizziness? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Recently, all articles regarding the 2009 flu pandemic by continent was moved by Immunize. I don't know if consensus needs it to be moved, but I reverted it before when TouLouse made the same thing. This day, Immunize moved all articles. A closing admin on 2009 flu pandemic in Europe's requested moved (moving back from 2009-2010 name to its 2009 original name) noted that the disease came up by 2009, so there is nothing worthy to call it "2009-2010". Any opinion? (Should somebody voted these to be back in their original names?) Thanks.-- JL 09 q?c 14:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
While trying to find the appropriate categories by symptom (for example: category:difficulty breathing, or category:confusion, or category:pain), I found some web sites which provide symptom checkers. [1] [2] [3] Is a kind editor willing to work on such an article? I would be happy to help out, but this is not my field, and I do not feel good about working solo outside my comfort zone. Thank you, -- Ancheta Wis ( talk) 08:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Lokal Profil has updated a bunch of maps based on a newer data set (2004 rather than 2002) [8]. Have added some but help to update the rest would be appreciated. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This user [9] continues to add EL to a blog [10] despite being asked not too. Extra eyes would be helpful. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
User Doc James has been and is the source of many conflicts with many users when it comes to editing. As far as I understand, Wikipedia is opened to any contribution, as long as relevant and verifiable. He has the tendency to believe he has the power to decide alone what is suitable and what is not. A non-spamming, relevant link shouldn't be removed without previously discussion, indeed Wikipidia is not Doc Jamespedia, I am myself a doctor but have the humility not to pretend to detain the ultimate truth. Greetings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.41.189 ( talk) 05:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry in this rubrique "what links to consider" I really don't see in what the ones i submited are considered spam. Anyways, Wikipedia has been critizised for it's value, now I realize why, it's ruled by a small number of people that decide what is authority.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seixal5673 ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Another IP is adding further links [11] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This article could use a look over. It appears to be your typical long term malingering article- while real medical viewpoints are included noting that there is no evidence it exists, they naturally aren't the focus of the article. Several puff pieces also exist on organizations promoting (compensation for) the supposed syndrome. Nevard ( talk) 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I have reviewed Dental caries for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article and help it maintain its GA status. Please comment there to help resolve the raised issues. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear all,
I’ve been trying to help folks who were trying to articulate the latest knowledge on Perception article, but my suggestions did not help much. On top of that, some little egos managed to erode even that little clarity we had.
I have decided, therefore, to simply rewrite the article on the basis of currently available knowledge in the following disciplines: cognitive and developmental psychology, medicine (especially genetics), philosophy and complex (adaptive) systems theory with emphasised references to non-monotonic logics. I am contemplating few other disciplines, but these will suffice for the beginning.
I have drafted the lead into the article and the draft can be found on the related discussion page. I am calling now for comments and contributions backed by the latest science and the latest contemporary philosophical thought. My only condition is clarity and brevity wherever possible. If you find other possible references, they will be welcomed too.
Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic ( talk) 21:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
...is a Good Article nominee..if anyone wants to review it. if it isn't picked up soon but I am trying to do a few older ones first. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Viral pharyngitis looks rather neglected, especially for such a common condition. Is there perhaps a merge target that we've overlooked, or does it just need some volunteers to give it some loving attention? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Why are some task forces in bold, and others not? Can we un-bold all of them? --- kilbad ( talk) 01:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I want to make an article to complement the list of cutaneous conditions, perhaps something that will combine the content of skin disease and skin lesion, with an overall goal to provide a fuller discussion on cutaneous conditions as a whole. What would you name such an article? I was thinking simply "cutaneous conditions." What do you think? --- kilbad ( talk) 13:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
We've got some confusion about Reticuloendotheliosis. Here we say that it's a (any) lymphoma of the reticuloendothelial system; then it's redirected to a specific neoplastic disease, Leukemic reticuloendotheliosis (ignoring other uses, such as non-lipid reticuloendotheliosis, which is an older name for Histiocytosis); finally, it has been redirected to a fungal infection of the lungs (possibly a corruption of "reticuloendothelial cytomycosis").
The original citation is to MeSH, where it has recently been replaced by "Lymphatic Diseases". There also seems to be a Reticuloendotheliosis virus, which causes neoplastic disease in birds.
I've always seen this term used in the context of neoplastic disease; does anyone else know of other uses? Should we make this a disambiguation page, or revert to the neoplastic disease (which appears to be the most widespread use of this uncommon term). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This section in the Sugar substitute article is troubling in its use of speculative and dubious research by Olney, who is a well-known enemy of aspartame and friend of Betty Martini, the major promoter of the aspartame hoax (see the Aspartame controversy article). Some expert eyes are needed to analyze that paragraph with an eye to using MEDRS sources and for balance. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Since the FDA approved aspartame for consumption, some researchers have suggested that a rise in brain tumor rates in the United States may be at least partially related to the increasing availability and consumption of aspartame.[9] Some research, often supported by companies producing artificial sweeteners, has failed to find any link between aspartame and cancer or other health problems.[10] Recent research showed a clear link between this substance and cancer; leading some experts to call for the FDA to pull aspartame from the market.[11][12] This research has led the Center for Science in the Public Interest to classify aspartame as a substance to be avoided in its Chemical Cuisine Directory.[13] However, the EFSA's press release about the study,[14] published on 5 May 2006, concluded that the increased incidence of lymphomas/leukaemias reported in treated rats was unrelated to aspartame, the kidney tumors found at high doses of aspartame were not relevant to humans, and that based on all available scientific evidence to date, there was no reason to revise the previously established Acceptable Daily Intake levels for aspartame.[15]
This is the case: A. Rad made this brilliant hematopoiesis image a couple of years ago in a vector software, but it could only be exported to raster format, so we couldn't have a vector version. Still, Spacebirdy successfully uploaded an Icelandic vector version of it, but hasn't got time to upload the original English vector version. It is fully editable in Inkscape, but it is so large that it slows down my computer (with AMD Athlon 2.6 GHz dual-core processor & Vista) too much to conveniently label it. So, is there anybody with either a "vector png" to svg converter or a faster computer (or a faster svg-editor) that can label this one? Mikael Häggström ( talk) 06:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This section on the talk page of the Vaccination article was started by an apparent doubter of the efficacy of vaccinations. The editor had been placing tags without any discussion, so I removed the tag with the request that they discuss, and now they have created the section and the matter needs discussion. The request is polite and reasonable. It is odd that the article doesn't provide this proof. To medical personnel this is as fundamental a matter of common knowledge as the fact that the Earth is round, but we can't therefore leave proofs out of that article! Even doubters deserve some education in basic medical facts. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I have just created and made live articles on the extinct species Trypanosoma antiquus and its vector Triatoma dominicana, described in 2005 from specimens in dominican amber. These species are the oldest example of this vector pairing described to date. I would appreciate if the articles could be assesed, wordsmithed, and proofed. Thanks. -- Kevmin ( talk) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
A number of editors have been adding content to articles such as constipation and thyroid, using edit summaries with claims like "adding verifiable content". Of course the content added is not properly sourced, and I would advise all WikiProject members to scrutinise these edits when encountered. JFW | T@lk 21:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Struck comments, the source on the talk page citing psychosis was from the 1920's, the source given in the article is to a medical university and appears to be recent, so nevermind. :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I just found this article is some search results. Would any object if I redirected this to the list of cutaneous conditions? --- kilbad ( talk) 01:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I strongly object to a redirect to list of cutaneous conditions. Although the list of cutaneous conditions is more comprehensive, it does not cover systemic diseases with cutaneous manifestations, while the list of causes of cutaneous abnormalities does cover such diseases. Regards. Immunize ( talk) 14:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Chronic fatigue syndrome websites have been abuzz following the October 2009 report in Science suggesting xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) as the potential cause of CFS. Recently, this buzz has included statements that the US Department of Health and Human Services is planning to screen the blood supply for XMRV (with the implication that the US government agrees that some form of disease causation has been established). However, causation has not yet been established, the association of the virus (with prostate cancer and with CFS) remains uncertain and the US government has made no statements on the matter. An editor at the XMRV page has proposed a paragraph on blood safety based upon statements made by a CFS advocacy group and by a doctor in a court transcript. I have opposed this addition as premature (until a government agency makes a statement, preferably reported in the media) and as not satisfying MEDRS. What's the best way to proceed? Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 21:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) In the verbal preamble which is recorded on the video at the HHS site he does state that "This statement has been coordinated throughout the entire HHS public health services." [My transcription] and the nature of the audience committee, indicates that this was a veted announcement. I was suggesting something like (see [16]):
As to HHC vs HHS -- sorry, it was a typo it should have read HHS: he is speaking on behalf of the HHS; that's my point -- I am a Brit and I get confused by your acronyms the way that you do with ours: DWP, NHS, NICE, etc. :) TerryE ( talk) 03:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Originally this discussion was started for the proposed wording and sources below: [17]
"Dr. Jerry Holmberg of the DHHS OPHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability stated at the CFSAC meeting on 30 Oct 2009 that, because studies have now associated XMRV with prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome, the committee will investigate the blood safety threat from XMRV. [18] [19] A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Blood XMRV Scientific Research Working Group has been formed according to the Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome Association of America, and included in the planned investigations are validation studies for XMRV testing, evaluation of the incidence of XMRV in the populace and blood supply (including subgroups), XMRV transmission studies, and human disease associations. [20]" I don't have objections to condense to approximately the wording LeadSongDog proposed. I believe there are enough RS's to justify a NPOV mention in the article. Ward20 ( talk) 07:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Can we continue this discussion on the XMRV talkpage? JFW | T@lk 12:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
For any cutaneous condition, there may be (though certainly not always) different subtypes or variants. Take lichen planus for example, which has many subtypes and variants, or squamous cell carcinoma, which also has multiple subtypes, like mucosal squamous cell carcinoma.
Therefore, for the most complicated cases, you might have something like:
Currently, I have been trying to list the main condition name as well as the specific subtypes/variants, hence squamous cell carcinoma and mucosal squamous cell carcinoma both being in the list of cutaneous conditions.
However, here are some questions I wanted to get the community's opinion on. Right now, subtypes/variants are simply listed in alphabetical order, independent of the main condition. For example, mucosal squamous cell carcinoma is not listed under squamous cell carcinoma. However, should it be? Should we be indenting subtypes/variants under the main condition? What are the pros and cons of that?
Also, going with that, should the various subtypes/variants have their own stub, or be redirected to the main condition article? In general, I have been making stubs, though there are times when simply a redirect exists, as with mucosal squamous cell carcinoma. What do you think is best?
Thanks in advance for your comments! --- kilbad ( talk) 04:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I've started to develop a comprehensive template or guideline for drug articles over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Guideline. The idea here is to follow WP:MEDMOS, but provide something a little bit more in depth to so someone has something a bit better to create an article about a drug. Comments on this are welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Guideline. WTF? ( talk) 23:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Would someone consider moving the two articles:
Most of the sources I have do not use the dash. --- kilbad ( talk) 03:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
User continue to add content tagged with "added verifiable content". [21] Most of it is wrong. Is there any way to search these comments to look for more similar edits? It appears that the person adding this creates a new account each time. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I just no article for testicular implants. Is there someone who has knowledge of this area, or feels like doing some basic research? It seems to me that this is a fairly important topic to have an article on. I'll get around to it later, if nobody else does, once I've wrapped up some other projects I'm currently working on. Thanks -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 22:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Can others please have a look at Talk:Spectrum (psychiatry), which was recently moved from Spectrum disorder, to determine if the article is well named? Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is nearly 600 pages of health data and graphs from the CDC [24] Could be used to illustrate a number of pages. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Vitamin C/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 23:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I want to start developing the cutaneous conditions article, which is currently a real mess. With that being said, I wanted to know if some of you would help me outline the structure of the article. My overall goal is to provide a fuller discussion on cutaneous conditions as a whole, and to merge in all the smaller articles on the different skin lesions ( macule, bulla, etc) and a lot of the other terms in the Category:Dermatologic terminology and Category:Dermatologic signs. I am not asking anyone to write the actual article (unless you want to!), but simply to help me develop a good working article structure for a future FA. Anyone willing to help me outline? --- kilbad ( talk) 22:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Action potential for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Pyrrhus 16 18:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Should we link to a site that gives an exhaustive differential in the disease box / symptom box? DiagnosisPro looks like a good candidate? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Could someone generate a properly formated inline citation for this book? I am having problems with diberri's tool. --- kilbad ( talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
User:LeadSongDog come howl 05:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)<Affiliation>University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. larrycha@uic.edu</Affiliation> <AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"> <Author ValidYN="Y"> <LastName>Chan</LastName> <ForeName>Lawrence S</ForeName> <Initials>LS</Initials> </Author> </AuthorList>
Our WP:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts page said:
I overlooked it at the time. Do we have this? Do we want to have this? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Would someone review the dash type used with the synonyms for the above syndrome?? I am not sure, but should an em dash be used? --- kilbad ( talk) 03:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI, several HIV/AIDS categories have come up for renaming, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 23. 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 06:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I see that currently meningococcemia redirects to Meningococcal disease. However, I feel that it would be more appropriate to redirect meningococcemia to Meningoccal septicaemia, as meningococcemia refers to meningococcal bacteremia. I was about to do it myself, but thought it would be better to get consensus for the change here first, as it would be a major change. Immunize ( talk) 21:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Done.
Immunize (
talk)
21:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
PDCook ( talk) 17:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I still do not completely understand mergers. Although I am aware that the histories of both pages are combined, it has often seemed to me that very little of the smaller article remains. Immunize ( talk) 22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you think this images has a chance to become a featured photo? I have never tried for a featured photo nomination? --- kilbad ( talk) 03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Have cleaned up / organized the requested article page. Have added a lead giving instruction on how this page should be used. Any comments / improvement proposals for the instructions? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Please comment and help create a consensus version at Talk:Alternative_medicine#RfC:_Proposed_new_section_.22Alternative_medicine_as_mainstream.22. Thanks. -- Brangifer ( talk) 15:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Can someone who may have some knowledge in the area please take a look at AllergoOncology something about it strikes me as being very shady and fringe like. I could be totally wrong though. Ridernyc ( talk) 17:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it does seem to be a fringe theory. I myself have not heard of it, so I cannot completely discredit the article, but it is unreferenced, and unless some reliable references are added soon I may nominate it for deletion. Immunize ( talk) 20:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, the user who created it, Ejense32, made only 1 edit-creating the page in question, which makes me question the articles accuracy even more. Best wishes. Immunize ( talk) 20:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)I have nominated it for deletion for that reason. Immunize ( talk) 20:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Announcing an RfC at Talk:Ghost#RfC:_Context_of_NSF_statement_about_belief_in_ghosts. The questions being discussed are:
1. Whether the National Science Foundation is a reliable source for stating that "belief in ghosts and spirits" are " pseudoscientific beliefs".
2. Whether their expressions can be considered to represent the current scientific consensus (in the USA) on that subject.
See you there! -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys. I was looking at the Nuss procedure article and noticed many changes since my last edit, not backed up with any references for the most part. I'm still behind in school and can't comb through it anytime soon. If someone can get to it before me, would you please check [30] and remove the non-referenced text. If not, I should be able to get at it next month. Thanks, 174.102.83.126 ( talk) ( §hep (logged out) 01:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the
GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at
Talk:Stem cell/GA1. The article appears to contain many copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are addressed. Thanks.
Jezhotwells (
talk) 21:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Jezhotwells (
talk)
21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Prion/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Is Google health an reliable source? I am just wondering as I have cited google health in a number of my lists, and in the event that google health is not reliable, I may have to change the sources of some of my additions. Immunize ( talk) 23:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I am redirecting Category:Infections of the skin and subcutaneous tissue to Category:Infection-related cutaneous conditions, but I want to do so such that the Category:Infections of the skin and subcutaneous tissue is not itself categorized. Restated, when I look at the Category:Infection-related cutaneous conditions, I do not want want "Infections of the skin and subcutaneous tissue" listed. Any ideas? --- kilbad ( talk) 17:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
This user 70.19.167.177 ( talk · contribs) is linking dermpedia [31] to a lot of pages. It is a similar site to Wikipedia. Anyway to roll all of them back? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I PRODed the Scott Rasgon (chief of nephrology at Kaiser Permanente in Los Angeles) article some time ago. It was dePRODed, rewritten somewhat, and two of Dr. Rasgon's papers were added (he is 1st author on a paper cited 50 or so times, and 5th author on a paper cited 150 or so times). However, I can't find any reliable sources that would generally satisfy WP:BIO. Do folks think he passes WP:ACADEMIC with his papers? I'm more familiar with applying ACADEMIC to professors rather than practicing physicians. Thanks, PDCook ( talk) 21:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Has not found by myself, dunno where else to ask: are there any contraindications for undergoing MRI\CT with contrast for a person suspected of having a mitochondrial disorder? Say, MELAS - is it O.K. to have MELAS and go to a MRI scan with contrast agent, wouldnt it cause any complications?-- CopperKettle 16:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I have placed a request for expert attention to the above article, and am alerting the associated Wikiprojects for Psychology and Medicine. A reader has raised a serious concern about the article and I think it would be very useful to have someone with expertise in the area improve its quality. Any help much appreciated.
I also think the article's current B-class rating by this project is questionable. There are whole sections totally without references, which I don't believe satisifies this B-class criterion: "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited." I also removed some stupid, week-old vandalism from the article - it could use more eyes. Gonzonoir ( talk) 09:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
In the article, it says that Function of this reflex is to maintain a constant length. But in Improvement in Linearity and Regulation of Stiffness That Results from Actions of Stretch Reflex, Nichols and Houk, 1976 Journal of Neurophysiology, they shows that the purpose of stretch reflex is not to maintain constant length but instead constant stiffness. -- Ml2000id ( talk) 06:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
See Template talk:PMCID for details. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
There's a request for a simple image at Talk:Xiphoid_process#Picture. The page has mostly close-up images, and some readers clicking through from another page seem uncertain about what general part of the body this small bone is in. A human chest with an arrow has been suggested. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Hope you are all doing fine, I want somebody to review this diagram that I created relating to cystic fibrosis and check of I did any mistakes, so I can correct them, thank you all MaenK.A. Talk 13:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed that the above page was recently recreated. Seems like someone from WP:MED should probably take a look. Yilloslime T C 22:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to make sure that what I'm doing represents community consensus, because I've already reverted a couple of times on a couple of pages. Currently, an editor at 75.85.14.10x is adding references to a grid project to Dengue fever [32] [33], Muscular dystrophy [34], and proposing same at Talk:AIDS [35] [36]. While these grid projects are laudable, the additions are not encyclopedic. I've tried to make it clear that I mean no disrespect to the grid project but rather have to respect the fact that WP is not a place to promote any cause. If others disagree with my actions, I'm listening. If you agree, then I'd appreciate it if others would weigh in so this doesn't come off as my own personal vendetta. My hope is there might even be a guideline specifically related to these grid projects, because this comes up from time to time. -- Scray ( talk) 13:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The article regarding the pseudoscientific practice of craniosacral therapy needs attention. Take this one example:
This uses a dubious source admittedly "Self-published online, September 2005. http://www.hummingbird-one.co.uk/pdf/sbs_simplified.pdf"
I think the whole article needs to be checked for violations of MEDRS. -- Brangifer ( talk) 18:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I find the Healthy diet article to be extremely biased in that it only lists recommendations from the World Health Organization and nothing else. I tried to add a section about the Paleolithic diet but my edits were reverted by a vandal. Evolutionary medicine is credible and should be given more attention than it currently is. Instead of citing special interest lobbyist-funded beauracratic government agencies we should cite other sources too. Mac520 ( talk) 04:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Sources: http://www.paleonu.com/ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/
I'd like to work on this article, because it's important and seems relatively abandoned. However, I don't have a lot of experience with heavy content editing, so I'm a little overwhelmed. Could someone either look it over and give me a hand or give me suggestions on where to start? Thanks, Annalise ( talk) 14:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Please review this version 'cause I'm editing and damned tempted to simply remove the section in question. Unless I'm missing or using the wrong search term, the results in google scholar are less than promising, pointing to publication mainly by a single scholar (Sloop), with one in the luminary vessel of Medical Hypotheses. Regular google doesn't do much better with wikipedia being the first link to show up. Google books is even worse with zero hits. The section itself looks like a lot of primary sources that are synthesized to produce a significant section of original research. Does this theory carry any currency in the medical community, or is it a fringe theory with no mainstream acceptance? I'm very tempted to simply excise the whole section citing WP:SOAP. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 18:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate any outside input at Talk:Medical Hypotheses. I have some concerns about edits which one user is repeatedly reinserting. In particular, I believe that the article makes fundamentally erroneous statements about the causes of sudden infant death syndrome. I'd prefer not to get into a two-person back-and-forth, and I may be off-base, so any outside input would be helpful. MastCell Talk 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I proposed a few new list sections/categories at Talk:List_of_cutaneous_conditions#Additional_sections_.2F_categories. Perhaps I could get some feedback there? --- kilbad ( talk) 20:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Zoophilic (not to be confused with zoophilia) has a transwiki tag. Should the stub be kept? Is there more to say? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that the Liver cancer article appears to have information on both Benign and Malignant Hepatic tumors, which I feel is incorrect, as the inclusion of the word "cancer" into the articles title suggests that only malignant hepatic tumors should be discussed in the article. I feel the text on benign hepatic tumors should be removed from that article. However, we need to discuss the benign liver tumors (such as the Hemangiomas, nodular regeneritive hyperplasia, and hepatic adenomas) somewhere on Wikipedia, I suggest the creation of a new article on benign liver tumors. Best wishes. Immunize ( talk) 14:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
So you agreee the text on benign liver tumors should be removed? Immunize ( talk) 14:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the section on benign liver tumors on the article in question, but the problem remains that we need some article to cover these benign hepatic tumors. Looking at the histroy of the redirect Liver tumor, it appears that Jmh649 ( talk · contribs) redirected the page to liver cancer on February 17, 2010. What should the next step for this article be? Immunize ( talk) 15:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Done I have restored the page
Liver tumor and redirected the page
Liver cancer to
Liver tumor. However, there was more content in the
Liver cancer page than there is currently on the
Liver tumor page.
Immunize (
talk)
15:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I see that another user has already resotored the lost content on the page Liver cancer and added it into the page Liver tumor, and has added the information on benign lesions back into the Liver tumor article. Immunize ( talk) 15:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the word "primary" in at least some sections of the article, as it implies that the article deals with liver metastasis, which it does not. I hope for improving this article to Good-article or possibly even featured article status. Immunize ( talk) 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I have redirected liver tumors to liver tumor, but I think we should move liver tumor to liver tumors, and reverse the redirect, what do you think?? MaenK.A. Talk 16:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Liver tumor should be moved to liver tumors. Immunize ( talk) 17:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Support for renaming article Liver tumors withdrawn. Immunize ( talk) 20:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I added an ionizing radiation-related section. Then I switched "-related" to "-induced." Which do you prefer? Also, any additional feedback is, as always, greatly appreciated. --- kilbad ( talk) 17:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Please weigh in there. This is just an announcement. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have created a new section on eosinophilic skin conditions and wanted to know if someone would create stubs for the four redlinks in the section? --- kilbad ( talk) 00:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Another editor has been granted permission to use dermatology photos from a couple other sites (see my talk page for details). I want to know if we are cleared to start importing all those photos from those sites. Again, see the bottom of my talk page for details. --- kilbad ( talk) 14:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Can someone discuss the BODE score in the prognosis section of COPD, or as an independent article please. Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnielsen7222 ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Could someone create a stub on Eczematid-like purpura of Doucas and Kapetanakis? Thanks in advance! --- kilbad ( talk) 23:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Anyone have any views on how to sort this section out? Mirtazapine#Indications I am tempted to do mass deleting but I don't know enough about the drug to know what are notable off-label uses and what is improper use of primary sources. It has been sitting in this state for months, maybe a year or more.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Just came across Category:Medical research and Category:Clinical research, I know that these terms were merged for this project in the days before time, was wondering if these cats should be merged too - or am I missing a distinction between them ? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
For info, there is a request to move (change the name of)
Allopathic medicine. See
Talk:Allopathic medicine#Requested move. --
Red King (
talk)
19:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I attempted to add my Username to the list of participants of Wikiproject medicine, but despite my edit, which added my username to the list, I failed to be displayed on the list. Any help would be appreciated. Immunize ( talk) 22:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi All I ve been granted a permission from the owner of this site dermnet.com Dr.Thomas Habif to use any image on his site under the common creative attribution share alike 3.0 license, so we need Ideas how to import theses picture, or whom to consult for ideas on importing such a big amount of pictures, thank you all MaenK.A. Talk 07:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I am very excited at the prospect of adding many of these images to Wikipedia, and I think they will be a valuable addition for our general readers. However, I do have a few follow-up questions/comments. First, with regard to permissions, I would still like to see a correspondence from someone from dermnet.com, Dr. Habif or whoever, expressly stating that we can use any/all the photos under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. I have e-mailed support@dermnet.com twice, and have yet to hear back myself on the issue. Maybe someone else can try contacting them as well? Also, perhaps someone at OTRS should be activity involved with this donation to make sure we are doing everything appropriately/legally. Second, with regard to patient consent, what it our actual Wikipedia policy/consensus on this matter? This issue has never been clear to me. Does a patient's "consent to be photographed" have to be indicated somewhere on the Wikipedia/Commons file page? If so, is there a specific form we should be using with he patient? What does/will this mean for photos in which that information is not provided? Finally, dovetailing off that, what is our Wikipedia policy/consensus regarding identifiable aspects of medical images? Many of us have uploaded images from different sources (ourselves, the CDC, etc), all with different degrees of identifiableness (examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Sometimes we use a censoring black box, sometimes we do not. Sometimes we include the face, other times we do not. I suggest, if there is no clear consensus on this latter issue, perhaps (once we get proper permission) we could still copy all the photos over to Wikipedia, and then edit/delete photos over time as consensus develops? Alright, just a few thoughts. --- kilbad ( talk) 04:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have contacted Dr.Frank Gaillard who is the CEO of the Radiopaedia site, and asked him to give me permission to upload images from radiopedia, he accepted that, and volunteered to upload them him self, but the I found his talk page on commons and found this, then I asked him if we could upload images under this license, he accepted this offer but had some requests that should be done whenever we upload a picture from his site:
So we need a list for images uploaded by Dr.Frank to radiopedia that we need here at wikipedia, so that we inform him, and then upload those images, any one wants to help with that?? here is the full listing of cases uploaded by Dr.Frank MaenK.A. Talk 17:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Regard this edit, if the disambiguation page is referring to multiple conditions that could all be considered part of the same category, could we not keep the Category:Palmoplantar keratodermas? I am not an expert on dab pages. --- kilbad ( talk) 21:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Concerned editors might want to take a look at this discussion before it gets completely out of hand. Specifically, it's a debate about whether the article on rheumatoid arthritis should mention links between diets and RA, and which sources are necessary and/or sufficient for drawing such a connection. Gabbe ( talk) 07:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I did not find any articles on medical discography so I started one at User:Stillwaterising/Discogram. I'm unsure of how to title it. Should it be a general article on all discography like discogram or specific like lumbar provocative discography or maybe discography (medical)? Any help would be appreciated. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 04:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been looking at WPMED's enormous cleanup listing. We've got some three-year-old merge proposals on the list. Would everyone please look over these, and try to do your bit?
For example, I'm sure that someone here will know whether those two anatomy articles are the same thing. If they're different, then getting them off our list just involves removing the tags from the articles (and, if you want, from the list here and/or at the cleanup listing). I just merged a pair of stubs; it took less than ten minutes. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Could use some WP:3O (see Talk:Amygdalin). DMacks ( talk) 10:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, this user did this to the article, the edit is referenced, but am wondering if we can relay on these references?? thank you MaenK.A. Talk 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Are tuberculid and tuberculide synonymous? Same with syphilid and syphilide... If so, what is the origin of the extra "e"? --- kilbad ( talk) 02:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Somebody spammed the List of circulatory system conditions to a bunch of articles back in January. I've removed it from a couple of dozen articles on hematological malignancies, but I think someone else needs to figure out which of these anemias are really 'circulatory' and which are not really cardiovascular diseases. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I have a question about how to determine the axis of a 12-lead ECG. In brief, I would like to know the correct method (if there is one) for determining which lead is most isoelectric (or equiphasic). [If this is a disputed topic, then please elaborate on all points of view expressed by reliable sources; if there is only one correct method, then please cite to the sources (preferably at least one textbook and at least one online).] Thanks. Bwrs ( talk) 04:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The above very-welcome opportunities raise the issue of consent by the subject of the photo to appear on Wikipedia. It is one thing for the copyright owner to willingly donate images to Wikipedia or to Commons, but permission is still required from any identifiable subject. Have a look at our Model release article and the Patient images essay on Commons (see also the talk page: I feel this essay is inadequate and will probably comment over there). Look also at [43], [44], [45], [46] which are just a few of the Google results for "clinical photography consent]. Here's some findings:
I think, especially given the volume of images involved, we should take legal advice from Wikipedia's legal team. Colin° Talk 12:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have emailed Mike Godwin. Colin° Talk 13:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) So it looks like we're dealing with 1552 images by Frank Gaillard? Those come on 17 pages and each image has a unique ID number. If no one objects let's start a subpage for review. Durova 412 19:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I think there are two separate issues with Patient images: (1) legal issues, and (2) ethical issues.
I too can make guesses but like Collin points out, we need (legal) facts rather than opinions. -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 21:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
So, we have an e-mail from Dr. Habif, stating the following:
To permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ http://www.dermnet.com/ ]. I agree to publish that work under the free license [ Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 ]. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. March 11 2010, Thomas Habif, MD
Therefore, my question: does this suffice for copyright holder permission to use all images on dermnet? If so, can we get a general OTRS ticket number to use with all these images? --- kilbad ( talk) 17:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Please comment. See: Talk:HIV#HIV_Risk_Table Phoenix of9 00:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the template at the end of the page [51] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_Mullerian_duct_syndrome] be
MALE Congenital malformations and deformations of sex organs
instead of
Female Congenital malformations and deformations of sex organs
or maybe both? "Female" tissue in a "male" person would be a male Congenital malformations and deformations of sex organs in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.59.37 ( talk) 16:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping one or more of would be so kind as to take a look at the new article on Combined Small Cell Lung Carcinoma. I know it still needs some work and cleanup, which I hope to get around to in the next week or so. I would also try to address any suggestions you ladies and gentlemen might have during this period of time. Thank you all in advance.
Best regards: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS DDF 03:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uploadvirus ( talk • contribs)
Hi, I created two other alternatives to this template, those are here and here, any suggestions?? or approval to use a new one?? MaenK.A. Talk 16:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated alcoholism for good article status, anyone who would like to give the article a once over and fix any remaining issues or pass comments or suggestions would be appreciated. A few references need to be put into inline citations which I will hopefully be able to do tomorrow while the article is waiting in the queue, unless someone does it before me. ;-)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me if this has already been canvassed here (and Wales' talk page may not be the most appropriate forum) but may I draw your attention to this suggestion? Anthony ( talk) 09:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC) To be clear: I have no interest in the above discussion re HIV infection rates. On the face of it, this question about higher standards, if it hasn't already been dealt with, deserves consideration on its own merits. Anthony ( talk) 10:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
#random-subject
– they already are and many editors (with more qualifications in the subject than I have) are working to keep it that way.
Physchim62
(talk)
19:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)I had in mind the outright banning of primary sources from medical articles. I cannot imagine a circumstance when it would be okay for an article to present evidence supported only by primary sources. And if they were banned this type of time-wasting would be avoided, and there would be no opening for synthesis. Anthony ( talk) 20:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Stillwaterising, that the introductions in some primary research papers provide useful independent summaries of a field, and have no problem seeing them used in an article, but the paper's results, and the author's interpretation of them should wait for an independent review. As for examples of sources I find unacceptable, pick anything that's not a peer-reviewed independent summary, a systematic review or a recent university-level textbook. I don't trust myself, let alone you, to cherry pick primary research. (No reflection on you, by the way. I have no idea who you are, but that's the point.) And I like the idea of erasing all poorly sourced assertions in medical articles. But it looks like I'm alone here, so I bow to the wisdom of the majority. Anthony ( talk) 23:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody know how to get free access to research articles through ScienceDirect or other services? The only two things I can think of are either to find a terminal in a university library with an online subscription or ask with them directly to give out a complimentary subscription as a Wikipedia editor. Any thoughts? - Stillwaterising ( talk) 20:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)