User talk:Davidruben/Archive 6

Vitamin A and retinol

Would you be interested in performing the merge tasks that were suggested for Vitamin A and Retinol at Talk:Retinol? You previously expressed willingness to do so and you appear to have the best handle on the topic of those of us who were involved in the discussion. Dekimasu 05:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Still wondering and hoping. Rather not? Dekimasuが... 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Birth control

Thank you for your message on my talk page. If you can think of a way to get more people involved in the discussion please feel free. Re the particular poll you suggest: I would prefer to go more slowly and flexibly than that. The wording on each page needs to be considered individually. A vote on wording covering many pages at once could be too restrictive. I propose to change the wording on one page (the Condom page), then consider some other pages one at a time. Note that the first few changes I'm making/proposing to make do not change the wording of "failure rate/pregnancy rate"; I don't see why there would need to be extensive discussion on a change which has no effect on the way the articles display. People may notice the edits I did on many pages and come back to the discussion for that reason, as you did. How do you personally feel about the changes I propose? Please comment on them at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate". --Coppertwig 13:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You've asked me not to make changes in the Infobox Birth control "for now". Would you please be more specific about the reasons and the length of time or criteria for ending the wait period? Do you see anything you don't like about the new version (and if so, what?) or do you need some time to test and examine it, or do you just want to give others more of a chance to comment? Again, note that simply installing the new version will not change the "Failure rate" headings. --Coppertwig 17:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way: I wasn't assuming anyone other than myself had changed their views. I think no one had spoken against changing to "pregnancy rate" on the Condom page if it matches what the citation says, though there was strong feeling from RedHillian that the vasectomy page must use the word "failure" (though it still isn't clear to me what "failure rate" is supposed to mean on that page). Also, I had said "Here's another idea" and described the changes to the infobox, (which were designed to try to satisfy the various views that had been expressed) and no one spoke against it. --Coppertwig 00:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way again: Congratulations on creating the Infobox Birth control in the first place. Well done.  :-) --Coppertwig 01:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion happening and I don't think I should have to wait unless there's a reason and/or length of time (or criterion), preferably both. If I don't hear anything back from you or anyone else on my talk page or on Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate", I'll assume that when you asked me to wait "for now" it meant one week (i.e. approx 4 days from now). I hope that doesn't sound unreasonable -- I'm just asking for some sort of response from you if you want me to keep on waiting, e.g. how long? I re-read your suggestion for a straw poll and see that you have as one option case-by-case selection of terms, so that's OK. You may hold a straw poll if you like, though I don't see the need. Right now nothing's happening, though. Note that just changing the template doesn't change the headers, it just allows flexibility so they can be changed. If there's something you don't like about my version of the template please tell me. I don't see anyone making any opposition to either the new template, or to changes of wording on the Condom page, except you asking me not to do anything "for now" with no article-content-based or software-maintenance-based reasons given. --Coppertwig 03:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

--

Thank you very much for your gracious comment to me at Talk:Birth control/Archive2. I'm now simply waiting until I have a block of uninterupted time so I can do the change carefully -- probably a few days. --Coppertwig 12:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox question

I saw the thread above and wondered if you might be able to help. I've been wanting to create a template like Template:Infobox Birth control for use in articles in Category:Forms of abortion for some time now. I posted to Help talk:Infobox quite a while ago, but nothing has been forthcoming, and I still don't know what to make of the infobox creation process. Any pointers you might be able to lend would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 11:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok not difficult. Peroposed infoboxes can be added to Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed , which is really just somewhere for large number of editors to collaborate on an infobox development. I'm not aware that there is any formal vetting/proposing/accepting process, but it would be wise perhaps to discuss at Talk:Abortion where interested people (who contribute to articles that the infobox would apply to) can add their thoughts.

First though which parameters where you thinking the infobox should contain (as the proposer you can be WP:Bold and decide upon the initial suggestions)?

• First use (anywhere) seems obvious
• Number or fraction of all abortions is problematic (i.e. different in each country and varies over time) - or did you want such data, eg Number_US = and Date_US = with nothing shown unless a date has been provided with the number parameter. Then separate set for UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand .... but where do we stop with including countries (Ireland, Carribean, South Africa...) ?
• Could have an Anaesthetic parameter as to whether needs anaesthetic or not (watch the sparks fly re American or British spelling).

Then I can then mark up an intial proposal to put forward at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed and we can notify Talk:Abortion. David Ruben ^Talk 13:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to know that the infobox creation process isn't as formalized as the stub creation process.This infobox would be associated with WikiProject Abortion, so, I could also propose it there too (in fact, I already have, it just didn't go anywhere). My suggested paramaters are as follows:

• Type of method: Surgical or medical.
• First use: When a method was developed.
• Last use: If the method has been phased out.
• Timeframe of use by gestational age
• Frequency of use: I think percentages would provide more immediate context as to how common a method was over numbers. With numbers, you wouldn't get an indication of how common a method was, in comparison to others, unless you checked other articles. As for which countries to cite, I'd say go with a few "representative" ones, perhaps the G8, or the most populous nations. An obvious criteria for exclusion would be countries in which abortion is generally illegal. I would also say that we should make note of countries that go against the general trend, that is, countries in which an abortion method is practiced more or less often than it is in other nations due to variations in laws or medicine.
• Availability: The legality of a procedure by country and whether it is generally accessible.
• Advantages and disadvantages
  • Potential health risks
  • Anaesthetic requirement
  • Contraindications
  • Other prohibitive or beneficial considerations (cost, invasiveness, how long a method requires to complete)

Maybe that's trying to cram too much information into one place? I don't know much about coding infoboxes, so I can't help you there. But I really appreciate your offer to help, because this is an improvement I've wished to see implemented on abortion articles for a long time. -Severa (!!!) 14:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems sensible start. One of things that became apparent with the Infobox Birth control was that in order to try and standardise what was inserted (particularly important given contentious & disparate POVs on the topics) the parameters were quite specific (hence not just advantages or disavatanges but various parameters within each of these). So do you see the Frequency of use, Advantages & Disadvantages as just 3 free-text parameters, or each having individual parameter components within the 3 categories ? No rush to reply (I'll look back later this evening or tomorrow) David Ruben ^Talk 16:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't really know much about coding an infobox, so I wouldn't know how to technically construct the parameters. I think standardizing the options would be the best choice, but we should also leave room for flexibility, given that sources are going to vary. How did you do it with the Infobox Birth control - free text, or standardized parameters? Information under the "Frequency of use" parameter could be easily formatted to include the components country, percent, and year. However, I see "Advantages & disadvantages" as being a single heading, in order to prevent the need for shifting a parameter between one of either two headings, depending on the specifics of the method (for example, "Anaesthetic requirement" could be listed under either "Advantages" or "Disadvantages," depending on whether the procedure called for anaesthetic). Also, perhaps it isn't desirable to associate the term "advantage" with abortion, so maybe we should substitute the title "Heath considerations" for "Advantages & disadvantages." -Severa (!!!) 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok working version set up on Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed via subpage of Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Abortion (the proposal page is really unweldy so I've also placed suggestion that each proposal is made on a subpage). I've also added an explanatory (sub-)sub-page "/doc" as to its use. Decided in end that country usage-dates if not provided should request that this be clarified with "?when". Discussion on teh proposal now should be held at Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Abortion. David Ruben ^Talk 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This is exactly as I imagined the ideal infobox — concise and well-designed. Your explanation of formatting is also very helpful. Thanks so much for creating this! :-) -Severa (!!!) 03:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox proposal

I was about to merely create the infobox, put it in articles, and move on, but then I found the proposals page, which is essentially a graveyard of proposed and uncommented-upon infoboxes. I thought that your system is efficient, although perhaps too complicated, because I would have preferred to simply create the infobox in the template namespace, with a template indicating that it isn't active yet, and then develop it there. Having a subpage makes the infobox more useful for development, but the whole "proposed infobox" system makes that a latent infobox much easier to ignore, and nothing may ever get done for less active WikiProjects.

If I may criticize somewhat, I think that what's established there has... too many layers. Creating infoboxes through un-subpaged means had problems, and while the subpage system fixes some, others are still there. If you have any comments, or if I'm being confusing, or if I'm confused, please leave a note on my talk page. Thanks! Gracenotes^T § 18:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

NHS hospitals

David, Having just been helped at an NHS hospital (fantastic place) I thought I might look around the WP pages and tidy them up. At Category:NHS_hospitals you describe hospitals as "operated by the NHS". Are you happy if I find or contribute something more accurate about the trust structure? Won't be for a couple of weeks anyway so no rush to answer. --BozMo talk 08:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Help on the implant page

Dear Dr Ruben,

You helped on the breast implant page before so I am asking for your help again. I have followed your advice/request and discussed any changes to the breast implant article and asked for a straw poll, before making changes. There are a few editors, including a DrCarter and an editor of Our Bodies Ourselves (an international women's health book -- translated into 18 languages I think) who generally agree about how to keep the article balanced. DrOliver, a plastic surgeon, disagrees with most of what we say, even when we provide direct quotes from the most reputable, unbiased sources. He just makes changes to the article when he wants to, regardless of any consensus that has developed. Can you remind him of the rules you established?

Also, some editors just like adding lots of photos to breasts on the page, the bigger the better. That's been a bit challenging too.

I don't think I referenced footnotes 8 and 9 exactly right -- they are official patient labeling available on a government web site. If you can help, I'd be grateful.

Thanks so much for your help. Drzuckerman 04:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Since my last note (above) Droliver has again reverted to his version of the breast implant article despite opposition of other editors in the discussion page. And, in response to a woman asking a medical question, he is now providing medical advice on the discussion page! I would not think this is the proper use of wikipedia. Drzuckerman 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

D&E definition clarification

Lyrl posted a request for clarification of the term Dilation and evacuation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion in response to another user's post at Talk:Dilation and evacuation#A bit of a problem. I thought that maybe your expertise could helpful here, so if you have the time, could you perhaps check out the post on the D&E talk page? Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 12:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Breast implants

Hi David, I've been on a wiki-break and I'm not actually back yet but I just wanted to draw your attention to the talk page for breast implants. Some editors are under the mistaken belief that you and I have "demanded" (actual word used in an edit summary justifying serial reversions) that straw polls be conducted for all changes to the article. I have clarified my position here and I just wanted to let you know in case you wish to clarify yours. All the best, Sarah 10:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox note

I just thought I'd leave you a note to let you know that I haven't forgotten about the abortion methods infobox. I'll be back from a vacation on Sunday. Hopefully then we can pick up on the infobox again. -Severa (!!!) 03:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Abney Windsor Hopton

Hello David,my name is Bill Edwards,i live in New South Wales in Australia.My GGrandfather was Abney Windsor Hopton.He was born in 1831 in Appleton Upon Wiske.He is listed on the 1851 Census as living with a professor of Language in 7 Albany Rd Camberwell.I have checked the records for his name and cannot find it on the hospital site.I was wondering if you have anything on him.He came to Australia and married he in 1861.Is there records of him gaining his certificate as a doctor.He was a surgeon he in Australia.Regards Bill

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.49.153 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 21 March 2007

Helps to provide signature for oneself and links to relevant articles (lots of Appletons, but I presume mean Appleton Wiske in North Yorkshire, England. No wikipedia article for Abney Windsor Hopton - need more details on a person to go looking. But is Abney Windsor Hopton notable, and if so why ? If not notable, then wikipedia is not a forum nor a geneology site.

Search in Google gave 1st hit as Jenny's Guestbook, where one posting states "my last name is Edwards but my father is genetically a Hopton.He changed his name legally to Edwards after my mothers 1sr marriage name.I have traced a lot of his family back to Yorkshire.I have looked at the names in your tree,and i cannot match any of your names to mine.My fathers Grandfather and his ggrandfather were surgeons in Yorkshire.His grandfather,Abney Windsor Hopton was born in 1831 in Yorkshire.He went to a University over there to be a Surgeon.It seems strange that your Hoptons were from Yorkshire and i cannot find a match with any of your names.Regards Bill Edwards. ". Her homepage seems to be http://freepages.family.rootsweb.com/~jcowling/

Second link found for the precise use of words (ie within quotes) is nolonger existing, but the cached page is according to Google: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:05FZRb0eBT0J:www.derwood.com.au/public-tree/58.htm+%22Abney+Windsor+Hopton%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk which is to the grandchild. Seems Abney married Eliza Anne (Darling/Hopton) Giles (Abt 1844-1887). David Ruben ^Talk 19:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Rheumatoid Arthritis

Hi. I agree with your changes to rheumatoid arthritis. I added this section to "disease" but it was removed, twice, by a system administrator - White Knight. Any ideas why this was? I thought the science was good.

Thanks. Rowan.

Inhaler(s)

Hi, David. I see in a few spots there is some question on what I have suggested in the inhaler disambiguation page. You nailed it with how those in the UK and others from non- US sources call things. See ↔ BOI/Breath Activated Device under the name brand of, IVAX Easi-Breathe inhaler.

I am very much a patient and see alot of terms that are not exactly perfect but would like to see a smoother way of accessing the information. So I could use some help here.

(added) http://www.respimat.com/com/homepage.jsp

Now another inhaler to describe!!!

--RonEJ 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the amaurosis fugax article...

Thanks for your help on the amaurosis fugax article. I am new to wikipedia editing, and it was good to see how to better organize the content with lists. If you have any other comments on how to make the article better, or just editing in general, I would appreciate the feedback. I realize the article still needs more content and citations in order to be complete, and I will work on that in the days to come. Regardless, thank you for your time and consideration! Kilbad 04:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Brendan | kilbad.com

please help

Dr Ruben, we really need your help with the breast implant page. This is the worst situation I have ever seen on wikipedia.

There is an administrator, JFW, who keeps reverting everyone's edits back to droliver's version. Droliver, as you may recall is a plastic surgeon with strong views about the safety of breast implants, but limited understanding of epidemiological research. In recent weeks, an editor from a well known book on women's health (OBOS editor) and a physician (DrCarter) and I have tried to make small revisions to the article, and we almost always agree with each other. Sometimes Dikke Poes and some others also agree. Each time, JFW just changes them back to Droliver's version, or droliver changes them back.

At the risk of sounding stupid, isn't the role of a wiki administrator to be a more neutral party? Is it appropriate for him to always side with one editor against everyone else? As a published author (4 books and dozens of articles in the peer-reviewed medical and science literature) I just find this situation difficult to accept. I know wiki has a mixed reputation because of edit wars like this, but it is still widely used and I have spent a lot of time trying to improve about a dozen articles on health issues (most unrelated to breast implants). This is the only one where one editor seems to control the content, no matter what.

You have helped before and I hope you can help again -- and perhaps help us find another administrator so I don't have to keep asking you. Drzuckerman

Gosling

Hi David

I see you wrote an article on Ray Gosling: do you know where he is?

Kirkhf 06:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)kirkhf

Hi Kirkhf, I'm pretty certain I can guess your full identity from your username (but it is strictly forbidden to disclose personal info about other editors), so please do use the "E-mail this user" feature to contact me :-) David Ruben ^Talk 11:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Birth control methods

Hello. I did not understand your reason for undoing my reformating of the template Birth control methods. Can you please explain it to me more clearly? Thank you for your time. SadanYagci 23:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I presume you refer to control methods&diff=113185417&oldid=112606209 this edit from 7th March ? The edit summary explains it - namely I reduced down the line spacing of control methods&oldid=112606209 this to a control methods&oldid=113185417 more compact line spacing version (or at least this makes a considerable difference viewing in Internet Explorer). David Ruben ^Talk 00:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Hospital

For your editing prowess →

Cheers!

Bennelliott 20:08, 1 April 2007

Admin reverts on WP:CITE

I am looking for some thoughts on the following... I added some stuff to WP:CITE about free sources (see [1]) following discussion, after getting majority agreement on the talk page (as per policy).[2]

SlimVirgin reverted.[3] I didn't find any discussion on the talk page about this. So, I left a message on SlimVirgin's talk page,[4][5] to which I did not get a response. I decided to re-added the section.

SlimVirgin reverted it again a few weeks ago. [6] Again, I did not find discussion. Again, I left her a message on her talk.[7]

Again, she has not replied to that message and recently made edits to WP:CITE--so, I'm left with the impression she won't reply. According to policy, changes are supposed to be discussed... yet this didn't happen here. Any thoughts on this? Thanks. Nephron  T|C 02:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree against consensus, and SlimVirgin has been apply other significant changes without discussion (eg promoting Attribution as if it is yet accepted as the umbrela policy for reliable sources,verify). I've reinserted the points and added a fresh discussion thread. David Ruben ^Talk 01:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this. Nephron  T|C 02:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin deleted it again[8]... whereas this time she posted a message[9] on the talk page after deleting. Perhaps I'm too attached with the bit I inserted to be objective, but I'm having some difficulty with assuming good faith (WP:GF) in this case. Nephron  T|C 18:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Tooth

Hello again! I could really use some feedback! I had asked a question about the Tooth article because I do not know what would be the best way to deal with information on human vs animal teeth. Most of the information is about human teeth. So, should there be a separate "animal teeth" article that the section should show as the main article or should the majority of the content in the tooth article be moved to a "human tooth" (or would this be an exception to have plural: "human teeth") article? What are your thoughts on the matter? My initial instinct was to keep the article as is and make a new article about animal teeth for the section to refer to, but I did not know if most anatomy articles try to keep a certain format when addressing that issue. I have had one suggestion to move most of the information to a "human tooth" or "human teeth" article. I would appreciate any ideas. Thanks! - Dozenist talk 13:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical tag at MEDMOS

OK, I admit that I got distracted because of all of my travel; can we try to finish this up and poll for consensus? [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS is receiving opinions on whether it is ready to become a guideline. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

David, thanks for your comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). I've suggested that the Classification column could be moved to a potentially better default position. Perhaps the guidelines need to say more about when someone might deviate from the order. For example, if classification was largely symptom-led then the Symptoms section should come first. If the condition was managed rather than treated, then the Prognosis section should come before Management. Could you review and consider changing the order in the guidelines? I'd also appreciate an entry from you in the "Comments on readiness for guideline" section. Currently there aren't anything like enough responses for us to regard this as having project-consensus approval. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 16:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Email

I hope you got my email. We can still meet up tomorrow, depending on a number of factors. I've also lost your mobile number (my Nokia 6020 has been misbehaving). JFW | T@lk 00:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes - tomorrow = Sunday I presume despite posting time of 00:04 ? I've email you back David Ruben ^Talk 01:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources

Could you please restore the discussion that you want to refer to, rather than the entire archive? Otherwise the talk page is rather wrong. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a recent thread on the page about what your section means. Perhaps you could say there, as I'm genuinely confused by it. Sorry if I'm being dense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to indicate in this talk page addition to Query section what the otehr thread had been. Now I'm getting confused too :-) David Ruben ^Talk 23:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Arthrogryposis article

Thanks a million for the excellent reference fix up's you made in ur last 2 edits. I was thinking what a horible reference mess i left for some poor unfortunate to fix, now it looks heaps better :). N good on yah for making that new template, shall use it from now on when creating articles of rare diseases. Keep up the great work!petze 14:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sinusitis Edits

David It is painfully obvious that you did not read the artical.

"The Penn research team demonstrated the disruptive action of SMase in frog oocytes (egg cells) engineered to place CFTR in their membrane. These oocytes are an experimental tool that allows the researchers to assess the flow of ions across the membrane by measuring electrical current. The researchers found that direct exposure of the CFTR-containing oocytes to SMase of Staphylococcus aureus and Bacillus anthracis bacteria shuts off the electrical current passing through not only the normal, but also the CF-causing mutant CFTR.

The next step for the research team is to develop specific inhibitors against the bacterial SMase and test the idea in an animal model."

1.The meat of the sentance about staph reads that Staph is capable of interfering with ion flow in the absense of any genetic abnormality of the host. This effect is not site dependent, in fact it is not even species dependent in that one of the studies I cited refered to work done on the effect of staph Smase on ion transport in frog eggs engineered to express CFTR. The bug does not care where the cell it situated. Staph A has all the viralance factors in inventory to interfer with normal epithiel mucus flow, in the lungs, in the sinuses whatever, and this by the way explains why only 50% of the people with Cystic Fibrosis have any anomolies in the TMCF gene, but that in NO way diminishes the applicability to sinusitis.

2. It is IRRESPONSIBLE to ignore the limitations of the current "gold standard" tissue stain and bacterial culture techniques to the point that those limitations have been FORGOTTEN. It knocks the old 'either this or that, not this, so that" chain of logic into a cocked hat because it is not either this or that by a long shot. The false negatives for cultures where the bacteria are present but have formed Voltron and settled down to a biofilm are very high, because unless that currate happens to scrape right on top of it they will not be picked up.

By the way, in 1981 a researcher for the CDC named Couch who worked in Epidimology published a study linking flu, and staph to chronic respitory infections. He published and then retired and nothing was done with the data. If more attention had been given to it we might have a staph vaccine by now.

AND In addition to the links I posted you really need to go here, to that wild and crazy Center for Biofilm Engineering website funded by that hotbed of specioius activity the US National Science Foundation.

http://www.biofilmsonline.com/cgi-bin/biofilmsonline/ed_misconception.html

A Biofilm Primer

HTML Printable Version PDF Printable Version

A misconception A science based largely on an artifact. Over one hundred years ago, Robert Koch made one of the most important conceptual and technological breakthroughs in the history of microbiology. He developed the methods to create a solid nutrient media in order to grow and isolate pure cultures of microorganisms.

The importance of this discovery to advances in medical, agricultural and industrial microbiology would be hard to overestimate. The dividends these techniques returned have positively affected the lives of nearly everyone on the planet. The training of generations of microbiologists has been based, to a significant degree, on the investigation of the properties of pure cultures and the elucidation of the properties of these organisms one at a time. As productive as this strategy has been, it tends to perpetuate a misconception. In fact, pure cultures are virtually absent in nature.

This suggests that most of what we know about microorganisms has been learned under laboratory conditions that are not representative of how microorganisms are found in nature. Microorganisms, like other organisms, exist in assemblages or communities where a variety of interactions exist. Mutualism, commensalism, antagonism, and saprophytism are but a few of the more common interactions known to exist among microorganisms and multicellular organisms.

---

You really need to go over there and take a read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truehawk (talk • contribs) 08:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

I did read the links given, and to accuse me otherwise is a breach of WP:Assume good faith. Indeed I thought they made interesting reading. I've copied the above and my reply to Talk:Sinusitis where other editors can view and comment. David Ruben ^Talk 13:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic Blood Pressure?

A very close acquaintance had a bleed/hemorrhage (stroke) and is still in hospital. Watching the monitors in ICU I began wondering about the dynamic relationship between pulse and instantaneous blood pressure. This does not seem to be mentioned in the Blood pressure article. Perhaps because it can't be very easily monitored? Even with an intrusive measurement, the device tends to malfunction if the individual engages in activity. When hypertension causes a brain bleed, would that likely be because of one instant of high-stress, perhaps induced in the small by activity? While the resting pressure would indicate how high the active pressure will likely get to, is it the pressure it actually gets to which is important? Under normal activity, how high will a normal person's blood pressure get? Pulse is easily measured dynamically. How much does blood pressure as a function of pulse vary from individual to individual? (including especially non-healthy individuals here). Can instantaneous blood pressure be estimated directly from pulse and resting pressure? Perhaps you need first to take at least one extra measurement? (It would seem the relationship would be roughly linear, but perhaps it's proportional to the square root because of the area dimension involved? One would guess that as the heart beats faster, each individual pulse/beat would initially jump in strength, then eventually taper off; and then there's the resistance element of the function). Does the normal body regulate different arteries so as to provide extra pressure where needed, but not overload delicate capillaries which cannot take the stress? Does high blood pressure and hypertension essentially mean that at rest the individual is under so much stress they have no capacity for safe activity? I.e. their resting values are perhaps close to what a healthy individual's maximum values might be?

I don't expect answers to all these questions. Pointers to where they might be answered would be good. (Perhaps in wikipedia, blush). And consideration for covering some of these concepts in some articles would be nice. Perhaps there's a "physics of blood pressure" article in wikipedia or elsewhere. Or maybe there should be.

Oh. Just noticed Poiseuille's law. I'd forgotten how complicated physics could be (blush). It doesn't seem to discuss a pulsing system, though. There is Blood flow. Sorry, I think I think lots of complicated thoughts without the background knowledge to integrate them, or assess their importance.

Ah. Found Exercise hypertension. It states rises in systolic under activity to 250, 220 or even 200 need to be watched. Since a healthy pulse can nearly triple under exercise, dynamic blood pressure is obviously not linearly related to pulse. A resting value close to that. Yikes. Though I've little idea what 100 watts of exercise is actually like. I hope if nothing else this note helps re-illustrate the confusion some people have over these matters.--SportWagon 18:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for query and you have done well to find the points mentioned above. It all gets more complicated still of course in dynamic systems (i.e. pulsatile vs. constant linear flow). For one thing there is a partial reflected pulse pressure wave that comes back down the arteries from the far-off tissue capillary bed. The degree of reflection is to do with the relative impedances of the main artery and its branches - in clinical setting this explains why the blood pressure in the arteries at the ankle are higher than at the elbow (see Ankle brachial pressure index and its talk page re ratio of cross-sectional areas need for impedance matching). The shear stress occurs maximally around branches and helps explain why atheroma occurs so commonly near arterial branches. The time-average pressure used to establish blood flow to the tissues is given by the Mean arterial pressure, which given the curved nature of the cardiac pulse is estimated as diastolic plus one third of the pulse pressure (i.e. MAP = [(2 x diastolic) + systolic] / 3), however as you correctly point out, the arterial wall stress is maximal at the top of the systolic pulse pressure. Suffice it to say that this is a whole topic in itself - haemodynamics (see also Blood flow & Impedance cardiography) and my university Professor Raymond Gosling would be appalled by my hastily half-remembered Radiological Sciences BSc haemodynamics (the medical field is termed Angiology) - sorry :-) David Ruben ^Talk 20:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been rather preoccupied with the patient, but they've come home now. Do I have a severe misconception when I think that blood pressure is highest near the heart, and is gradually reduced as the blood continues its journey through the system? Does any pressure drop occur in the arteries? Or perhaps no significant drop, with the drop to venal pressure occurring mostly in the capillaries? I.e. so that, for diagnostic purposes, arterial pressure measurements in lower arms will be identical (within tolerances) to those in upper arms? (I note your mention of reflections above, too). Or, related, I can't see why the pressure in the thigh arteries would not be somewhat, i.e. measurably, different from that in the arm arteries (in most individuals). A nursing student I know asserted the pressures would be the same, but did not give an explanation of why. Before I concluded pressure must drop somewhere throughout the system, the system did not make sense to me. But perhaps my model is totally wrong. As a layman, it would be nice if there were Wikipedia articles which made the system make sense to me. Most of them are stubs right now. I might be wrong again, but it seems to me capillary pressure would be the main factor involved in a hemorrhagic stroke. Which, it would seem to me, can be inferred, but not directly measured, by arterial blood pressure.

Hmm. Ankle brachial pressure index has the phrase "higher of the two systolic blood pressures in the arms". Am I correct in inferring that the measurements in an individuals two arms might often differ measurably?--SportWagon 17:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll need think over the main points you raise above. As a quicky - yes the higher of the 2 arm pressures are used. Of course pressure in one arm will not be absolutely identical to the other (slight variations in artery diameter and of course one hand being the dominant will have slightly better developed musculature..). Of greater importance in ABPI measurement is that this is being undertaken in a patient suspected of having arterial disease of the legs, and such disease may well involve to some extent the arteries of the arms as well as the legs. So the higher brachial pressure is likely to represent the arm with the least arterial disease, and thus closer to the aortic pressure and thus closest to the pressure of the iliac artery above the leg. There are loads of assumptions and approximations here and so whilst it is not a perfect test for arterial disease, it is relatively simple, non-invasive and painless.

The arteries in real life are not perfect elastic material (give back as much force as that ainitially applied) and so yes the pressure waves will diminuish a little over distance, and some pressure is lost at each arterial branch (although the relationship of cross-sectional areas helps minimise the drop at each branching), so yes the greatest pressure drop occurs in the capillary beds. David Ruben ^Talk 18:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to suggest individuals should regularly have BP checked in each arm and compared. It seems all four limb BP are treated as very close approximations to aortic pressure, and in healthy individuals that is true? In the case of heart strain, aortic pressure is the real concern? But in the case of a hemorrhage, it would seem to be capillary pressure which really matters. But that is primarily a function of the aortic pressure, too. Anyway, your notes are helping me refine my mental model, thank you.--SportWagon 22:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

==Hi doc ==

thanks a lot for messags and note , i am tryig to add these few words i am adding in a simple english ,i wanted to ask u , how i can join a society here on Wikipedia ?

thanks a lot

Dr.tawfik 01:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr.tawfik (talk • contribs) 01:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Goto Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Participants anyone free to add their name to list. Project is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine and its talk page is the doctor's mess. David Ruben ^Talk 01:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Distal

Hi David,

Thank you for your efforts on the Palmer notation page. I hope they will give more publicity to my preferred tooth charting system. The word distal means "away from the midline" and is, I believe, the correct term in the context of tooth position. It is the opposite to mesial which is a more commonly used term, especially when used to describe the movement of teeth "mesial drift" throughout life.

Distal (dis'-tal) Away from the midline; in dentistry those surfaces farthest from the mid-line of the dental arch. Ref. Heinemann Modern Dictionary for Dental Students 2nd Edition by Jennifer E.H. Fairpo and C Gavin Fairpo 1973

Mpreston 04:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Mpreston

I agree, but I thought the previous wording of "to number the teeth from the midline distally" was awkward. Firstly it was redundant, in as much that "from the midline" is it in itself to move distally. Its a like stating "to go up superiorly", one only needs "to go up" or "superiorly". Also it seemed unecessary "jargon" to use the word "distally" when the plan english was quite sufficient in itself and made for better prose :-) Incidentally thanks for introducing me to "mesial" not a term as a doctor I think I had ever encountered (I would have used the term "lateral").David Ruben ^Talk 13:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Seborrheic Dermatitis

I posted the link to the yahoo group, because i think it is the best resource for people who suffer from the disease.I have SD, and i got my face and body clear by following the routines explicit in there. I found that group, through wikipedia. I want to help people the same way someone did, by posting the link. If you don't believe me, please visit Seborrheic Dermatitis Yahoo Group - and read the routines of people like scott and photos of how they were before they found the group, and after. wikipedia's external links page says "Links normally to be avoided" and foruns appear in the list. I know. But they just say "normally". I mean, this link is really important if you know what i mean. waiting for the response.

Daniel

ps:sorry about my english (non-native speaker)

User:87.196.84.145 14:20, 8 May 2007

The "normally" really does apply, exceptions would be if the article is directly about the forum itself, or if the forum was involved in some controversy in the wider world about the disorder (see WP:External links). Otherwise they are a series of individual opinions (and such information would not be permitted directly within articles under WP:No original research). The information may or may not be useful, but they do not require assertions to be supported by impartial objective studies and who regulates or censors the forum ? In general therefore, forums are not WP:Reliable sources. A better source of information would be a review article from some notable publication (i.e. a peer-reviewed medical journal), whilst other sources are inherently less reliable (news paper stories are often, but of course not always, not well balanced in their reviews of the latest treatments). Good places to look for review articles are the MedlinePlus and eMedicine sources linked to in the infoboxes of many medical article. For specific journal papers (of which some will be review articles), PubMed allows the largest online searching of biomedical journals. Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi to enter keyword searches, for SD there are 2272 hits. David Ruben ^Talk 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Salmonella nomenclature

Two points - the sentence as read is discussing CDC convention, which is to not italicize the serovar. Secondly, the serovar name is not the species name (a species name *should* be italicized). The point of the nomeclature that the CDC and others have accepted is to differentiate between the species and serovar names so that they are not confused for each other. I assumed Wiki convention would hold for genus and species names, but to use Wiki convention to over-ride the detailed convention of specific scientific nomenclature seems a bit counter to the idea of sharing accurate information.

Thanks, --01:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Gshell

IRC

I replied to your question about IRC at that page (can't remember the title). I figure talk pages are faster. What client do you use? John Reaves (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC help

Thanks for offer of help on IRC - terminology completely baffling to me (not helped by freenode instructions written as if translated through several languages into final english) - just which channel are admins supposed to log into, and how does one register when it seems by invitation only. Finally what on earth is a cloak ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First, here's a good help guide for beginners of IRC. Second, here's the link to the administrators channel, per WP:IRC, along with a description:

#wikipedia-en-admins is a private channel used mainly by admins and some other users. Despite the name, the channel is - like every other IRC channel - completely unofficial. See Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins for detailed info.

Third, a cloak is a username on the internet which covers your location. For example, if I were editing from home, instead of Real96@34.56.294.5 showing, my cloak would be Real96@wikipedia/real96. Hope this helps! Real96 01:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, this is where you get a wikipedia cloak (see here). Cheers! Real96 02:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi David - I just wanted to say thanks again for the nomination for adminship and the kind words. The nominations meant all the more coming from editors for whom I have so much respect, and I hope to live up to the expression of trust. Keep up the good work, I'll see you around Wikipedia, and let me know if I can be of assistance. Thanks again. MastCell ^Talk 15:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:BNF52small.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BNF52small.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image been superceeded for that for cover of the 53rd edition. Therefore I agree image nolonger has valid use and deleted.David Ruben ^Talk 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

King's College Hospital

Dear David Ruben

Not all of Camberwell is within Southwark, although most is. King's College Hospital and its immediate surround (in which I live) is in fact in Lambeth in the ward of Herne Hill. If you wish to confirm this then you can check this either on the Southwark or Lambeth websites (the Southwark website has a better map). The subject of Camberwell's split between 2 boroughs is also discussed at length on the SE5 community forum as it is felt by many local residents that this has lead to a lack of long term conjoined planning to the areas detriment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yasf75 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

PMID in cite journal template

Hi David,

I'm just coming to grips with citing in the wikipedia and started using citation templates. {{cite journal}} caught my eye since it includes PMIDs which I consider one of the best ways to quickly track an article online. Names and titles are often not specific enough in a search. PMIDs are also easier to copy/paste.

So, I got started with the template only to note that the PMID field I specified in the in-line citations was then ignored in the generation of the end-of-article reference section??? What's the point of having that field if it is not used? How can I make the PMID show up as a link in the references?

Hope you have some advice for me.

Best,

Jasu 14:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Circeus already solved my problem. I wasn't aware that you need to use small letters. It was counter-intuitive since PMID is always written with capital letters. Well, except in computing. Best, Jasu 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

bioavailability

Hi I'm new to editing wikipedia, and do not know many of the functions (such as discussion, or mytalk, etc..... Don't know if I'm doing this correctly or not. :p I got the bioavailability information from Goodman and Gillman's 'The pharmacological basis of therapeutics, 9th edition'. I have added or changed several drug's PK data, and do not know exactly which one you indicated.--Be4u92 15:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Conjunctivitis

David, The posting under conjunctivitis is not spamming or an attempt at link building, I am aware that wikipedia uses the "nofollow" tag, but a resource that speaks at a level consumers can understand. Most medical information available today is not written at a level most consumers understand, my site strives to achieve that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Infections (talk • contribs) 19:09, 18 May 2007.

As you admit the external link was to your own site ("my site strives...") please read carefully WP:External links, especially WP:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest where it states "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent". Also see WP:Conflict of interest. Fuller response on your talk page (suggest on an article talk page, but let another editor dedcide wheterh to add links or not) David Ruben ^Talk 21:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Ruben, I am sure if this is right place to ask the question, but I was looking for the name of an ear disease if I can call it that, its symptom is the over sensitiveness of noise, any unexpected loud noise can make the sufferer jump of his/her skin. Thank you.

Sorry, forgot to sign my name at the above question.

Yesssd.

Fibromyalgia

Thanks for all your clean up work on Fibromyalgia. I made a couple of changes, however to what you did. In one case you merged two references to the same book, but with different authors, so I separated them. The book in question, The Divided Mind: The Epidemic of Mindbody Disorders was mostly written by Dr. John E. Sarno, but contains additional chapters by six other physicians, including one by Andrea Leonard-Segal, MD, a board certified Rheumatologist and Internist, and a professor at GWU Medical School, who has adopted Dr. Sarno's beliefs that fibromyalgia is a psychosomatic disorder. It was her quotation that was given in the second reference. Therefore I separated them. Also the spelling of "defense mechanism" is the American spelling the way she wrote it. Anyway, thanks, Ralphyde 04:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I assumed that the book refs were for one and the same, but just that only the lead author alone was given on that occassion. The Cite Book templates could/should be ammended to use "editor="Sarno JE" and "author=" used for the relevant chapter writers, as well as using "chapter=" where this known - but this is minor stuff :-) You are of course right about sticking to AmE vs BrE - I was not aware of this variation, thanks. David Ruben ^Talk 13:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You are Clearly Attempting to Protect Corporate Interests.

Why are you going on an edit war with me stalking me where ever I go? There is lots of commentary in the articles in favor of advancing the position that these drugs are "helpful" when there is also another position to the contrary. And why are you removing the side effects from all the reports like you have? You are clearly attempting to protect corporate interests. I have a disire to help the common people with information that serves to protect them from corporate thugs. Dr CareBear 01:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for enquiry. Articles must give a balanced approach and the policy which governs this is WP:NPOV. It should be noted that wikipedia merely reports on established knowledge whether or not it is correct (i.e. wikipedia does not follow Scientific point of view - so it is not wikipedias role to campaign or "serves to protect" from the "corporate thugs" (a view point which, whilst held by some/many, is a minority one).

Assertions of a drug being terrible or dangerous can only be included in an enyclopaedia if a third party source can be WP:Cited in order to WP:Verify. The reference needs to be from WP:Reliable sources. Personal opinions/experience are excluded under WP:No original research. The consensus of (reliable source) opinion is that these drugs are useful, whilst accepting (like all drugs) that they have their side effects, this is (rightly or wrongly) the de facto majority opinion.

Now I don't doubt that others may hold contrary views on this class of drugs, but such opinions are a minority. Under WP:NPOV, minority view points do not need be accorded the same article space as the majority view point.

Many drugs are indeed "me toos" produced by rival pharmaceutical companies and seem to offer little differences from other members of their drug group. My own personal copyediting view is that with wikipedia being as a whole a body of knowledge, such information need not be endlessly repeated in each article of a class of drugs. Hence detailed descriptions of indications in each antibiotic article of Cefalexin, Cefadroxil etc is probably best merged into a single general description in the article on the class of drugs as a whole (Cephalosporins in this example) with then individual drug-articles only mentioning notable differences.

How much and in what order to list out side effects for individual drugs is never entirely agreed between editors. Generally common side effects listed before the rarer ones, and mild symptoms may be WP:Notable (ie worthy of inclusion) for being common, whilst the uncommon more adverse effects are notable for their severity.

Take this edit to Fluphenazine, the article has a link under Side effects to that of the class of drug article, Typical antipsychotic, and notes in comparison to Chlorpromazine that "Neuroleptic malignant syndrome although not so common is a potential side effect of all antipsychotics". To add into the lead -in "...potentially fatal neuroleptic malignant syndrome." is therefore duplication of information and unbalanced (given that with the lead-in starting with "Fluphenazine is a typical antipsychotic drug... " the notable bit about Neuroleptic malignant syndrome, for this drug, is that it has a lower incidence than some other members of the drug group).

As the article Akathisia defines itself as an often extremely unpleasant subjective sensation of "inner" restlessness, to describe it in this edit as an "agonizing side effect" is WP:Peacocking a POV. I'm not the only editor to have this assessment, see this other editor's edit summary.

Finally your choice of section title for this thread of "You are Clearly Attempting to Protect Corporate Interests" hardly follows WP:Assume good faith. To prevent this getting personal or descend into "an edit war", I have invited other editors to comment to help form a consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine#Akathisia_as_cause_low_compliance_for_exceptionally_toxic_neuroleptics .David Ruben ^Talk 02:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

MRSA

I am a liitle disturbed that you saw fit to remove 2 links I had added to the MRSA page. They are at leat as legitimate as 2 others and add significant resources to those seeking to understand this disease. The visitors they generated explored the sites in more depth than any others in the time span and clearly found these 2 sites a helpful resource

I have read the relevant pages in the Wikipedia guidelines and would suggest that they be applied evenly or with discretion, but not in what appears to be a partisan fashion

Dave Roberts

User:forevercharlton

Thanks for the query, I've responded on your talk page (User talk:Forevercharlton). David Ruben ^Talk 13:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Chlorpromazine etc.

(sigh) This is why I generally avoided editing psychiatric articles until now. This person continues to edit without discussion on the project page. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to get some other input.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 07:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets galore

Hello David - as you're not involved in the editing dispute at akathisia, could I ask you to take action regarding User:NetCafe, an obvious sockpuppet of User:Dr CareBear who has popped up to reinsert some of CareBear's material? Were it up to me, I'd block the sockpuppet and lengthen CareBear's block, but I'm involved in the editing so am not going to take action myself. MastCell ^Talk 23:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi David - just wanted to let you know that I did ask for extra sets of eyes to watch this situation at WP:AN/I#Request_for_outside_admin_review. I think everything's been handled quite properly, but a sanity check can't hurt. MastCell ^Talk 16:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - a thoughtful and sensible query for "a sanity check" :-) David Ruben ^Talk 17:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the last on haloperidol is as the vocabulary is different andthe latter user has ben editing up a storm on other areas in contrast to the former's singlemindedness.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Now this IP on Promazine definitely uses some familiar vocabulary. I guess the checkuser function first?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyhoo, now this page is on my watchlist too.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand why

I understand why you kept the block on, but i did try take to the talk page AvFnx 17:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. I had seen that you had engaged in talk page discussion, my mention of this was twofold, firstly that continuing to discuss on talk pages is preferable to revert/edit waring on the article itself, and secondly that this is a first stage in dispute resolution. You implied in your revert request that a couple of others may be one and the same editor, such sockpuppetry is of course prohibited (if true). Hence I provided some links for you to consider options for resolving this dispute (including WP:CHECK etc). But often the best approach is to stop this being an issue of one editor against another (wikipedia does not work well as to whom can shout the loudest or longest) and seek the opinions of other editors (a relevant Wikiproject or Wikipedia:Requests for comment). Hope this helps David Ruben ^Talk 17:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA :)

Thank you for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page. Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, David—you've been around a lot longer than I have, so feel free to give me any pointers :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Onychomycosis deletion

Thanks for your good work with the references on this article, they definitely needed some attention. However, you deleted a section with the comment:

If not yet completed trials then not certain will ever be commercially released. Until released not Notable and so remove)

I think the deletion of this entire section is unwarranted. Are only commercially available drugs notable? I would be strongly disinclined to agree. Your reasoning would presumably also lead to the deletion of the following articles Pralatrexate, Ocrelizumab, CHHIP, Apolizumab, Beraprost, CytRx etc. etc. Could you please expand on how notability justifies your deletion or revert. Thanks. Pgr94 22:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Corneal ulcer

RE: your edit to Corneal ulcer: It is true that all ophthalmologists undergo training in cornea as part of residency. However, fellowship trained corneal surgeons get more specialised training in corneal transplantation. That's why I had qualified the statement. However, I guess, I omitted the use of word "fellowship trained in cornea", which is more appropriate. Thanks, EyeMD ^T|C 07:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fetal intervention

Answered your question. Una Smith 02:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your help may be needed!

Hi, I have noticed your frequent edits to Infobox Hospital, and someone with your knowledge of wiki formulae may be needed here.

Thankyou in advance for taking a look. Bennelliott • Talk 17:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Psoriasis

I saw you editing the article. Perhaps you can tell me: Which are the components found in the scales that make the psoriatic and not the other dermatitis scales appear silvery? Jclerman 13:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

RE:Template Design

The Template:Infobox Weather is going through a major revamp with standardisation of the colours, and making each template easy enough for the average joe to apply to any city by just adding values, without having to change any hex values for colour. I'm not sure how it's progressing at the moment, but do ask Doron and look at his test pages, he's the person with the know-how as to what needs doing. Cheers for your help!

Oh and yes you are right, there are multiple "weatherboxes" in use, see London, Toronto, and Cape Town (the latter showing the colours we want to have in the calculation template). Cheers again! Bennelliott • Talk • Contribs 21:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Phenothiazine

Dear David, Thanks for the advice on leaving an edit summary. As you noticed, I am new to Wikipedia and I am grateful for any tips.

I deleted Flupenthixol from the table as it usually classified with the thioxanthene group. I think it might confuse readers to find it classified as a Phenothiazine in one article and as a Thioxanthene in another. In my opinion it should either be removed from the table or a short explanation should be added. I do not feel strongly about this issue, though.

Cheers, Florian

Phenothiazines

Sorry, forgot to sign my name... --Drfloz 06:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Help

I made a mess of a move, and now I can't fix it without Admin help. I need Cameron Mitchell Restaurants deleted, so I can move Cameron Mitchell (restaurateur) on top of it. The reason is that the article isn't about the person - it's barely about the restaurants, but at least it has something about them, while it has nothing about the person, not even his birth date! Zsero 01:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Zsero 01:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A pleasure - a sensible enough request - so forced the move (only overriding your 2 edits of redirects). David Ruben ^Talk 01:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dr CareBear redux

Hello David. Dr CareBear (talk · contribs) is back with his usual nonsense - here he inserts an utterly incorrect paragraph claiming that phenothiazines have a similar toxicological profile to acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (when in fact they are anticholinergic). Given his long history as a recidivist adder of unsourced and POV material, disruption, edit-warring, etc I was wondering if you could keep an eye on him. MastCell ^Talk 03:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering I have only been in Wikipedia for a month it is really a surprise that I have a "long history". I am a new Wikipedia editor. Dr CareBear 08:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

MastCell is the One in Error not I. He is confused

DavidRuben I suggest you see my response to MastCell on his talk page. He is the one who is mistaken not I. ANTICHOLONERGIC BLOCKING EFFECTS is not the same thing as ANTICHOLONERGIC. MastCell is confused and he is in error. He does not know what the difference between "anticholonergic blocking" and "anticholonergic". He removed factual material claiming it was not factual but I provided proof to the contrary on his talk page. Please see MastCell's Talk page. Dr CareBear 07:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

New User

Thank you very much for your welcome message. Since I am new to wikipedia I may err here and there. Kindly bear with me. If you find anything objectionable pl trash it. thanks once again drtbalu 17:53, 3 July 2007 Drtbalu

Hello

I downgraded my hemoglobin a1c app and left a small version with no links. My renal dieticians were wanting an online app. You have an interesting profile, I would enjoy talking with you further. Have a good day! Scott E Pace MD 13:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Lyme and TTP

Hi. I don't know where to post this on yr site or whether I even should. I want to add to the discussion on TTP and Lyme. I was mis-dxed with ITP and then dxed with TTP Aug 99 with only three of the so-called clinical pentad signs and spent two mos in hospital with 53 plasma exchanges, none of which stopped the TTP (vincristine did). Anyway, a yr and a half later I got a Lyme dx, by which time I was twitching away with myoclonus and fasciculations like a puppet on a string. A hemonc fellow looked at my blood every day and never saw any evidence of ehrlichiosis, and all WB tests since then have been negative for ehrlichiosis -- and I do think the WB has been for all three kinds of ehrlichiosis -- but positive for Lyme. The most egregious long term effect of the Lyme has been "leaky gut" syndrome, altho now I'm also testing positive for mycoplasm pneumoniae and chlamydia pneumoniae, which they didn't test for in '01, when I was first dxed with LD, and who knows if that, rather than LD, is the cause of my GI problems. I do know that upwards of 80% of ticks now carry mycoplasma. I don't know if this is of any interest to you, but I would love to post it somewhere in hopes that some doctor will save some patient unnecessary exposure to unencapsulated viruses via plasmapheresis and the insult of prednisone, when simple abx might do the trick. tnx.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.192.197 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 July 2007

Need to consider - how frequently does Lyme cause TTP or confused for it, conversely of all cases of TTP, how commonly is Lyme involved or mistakenly considered to be involved (ie issue may be significant for one condition and rare side-note for other). Generally need to ensure can cite from reliable sources in order to be appropriate to add information to a tertiary encyclopaedia source such as wikipedia. If you have specific points you wish to discuss with other editors then raise a new thread at Talk:Lyme disease or Talk:Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura :-) David Ruben ^Talk 18:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I just noticed you replaced my ugly Image:CDC immunization schedule.png. Thanks, yours is much better. Rmhermen 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

...for your recent work improving the refs in acupuncture! best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 01:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I recently added a link on the page about Vitiligo, but you considered it as advertisement. It is NOT!

I added a link to Provitiligo.com - the main archive of information about vitiligo in Russian. There are several links to American support communities and I don't see any reason, why nobody can add links to sites outside USA. You know, this is quite international desease and there are tons of russians in USA who would prefer to read information in their native language. Czorny 21:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page - this is purpose of the other language wikipedias, otherwise every article would be linked to Spanish, Chinese, French, Dutch etc etc (how many languages spoken in USA, let alone here in UK for Welsh and Gaelic etc) and might not they also like translated paragraphs to read here in English Wikipedia ? :-) David Ruben ^Talk 21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick note...

Enjoy your break :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, David (I've just realized the bad timing of this), I've proposed a new Drugbox-style template for combination medications (e.g. co-trimoxazole) here. As you work(ed) tirelessly on {{Drugbox}}, I'd really welcome your input and guidance! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Valproate semisodium

Thanks for getting back to me. I had no plans on making any sort of edit to the article. I was hoping a professional or another patient could give me some idea of how I compare and I couldn't find any support groups or informational pages anywhere else which could help me out. Should I remove it because it could be potentially damaging to someone else? Thanks again, I appreciate your feedback. Sideburnstate 14:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Very much. Thank you. Sideburnstate 21:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi David,

Thanks for your note to me. I need some help when you have some time. I have done a lot of reading about the Wiki rules and then added some content only to have it removed entirely. I am a writer/editor by trade, but find the Wiki rules and how-to's very confusing.

I do part time contract work for a well-known doctor and nutrition expert, and he has asked me to look into Wiki and add some information about nutrition to certain pages about diseases that could be helped by an improved diet, such as type two diabetes (which is where I had added some information). His son is in medical school and says that all students use Wiki, so it's important that in the treatment or diet sections that an array of approaches is represented, including a healthy/plant-based diet.

I see that he has been quoted in another Wiki area so I used this as a guide to make sure I wasn't violating any rules. (BTW, how do I know by who/why my information was taken down?) I don't know what I am doing wrong. How do I do this without violating the rules, and what are the rules about mentioning names of doctors (there are many who have similar viewpoints as his)?

Thanks much, Cathy Cathy88 18:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow up

Thanks for your response David :) It was really helpful.

I have one question. If people who have a particular point of view, expertise, or who are personally involved with a topic are not creating articles or editing them, who is and where are they getting their information? Are they always unbiased and contributing just because they love doing research and writing? I imagine people who contribute on certain topics have a personal interest in these topics, yes? Is it just the distinction that they are not making money indirectly for posting information?

I am also a student of nutrition currently, so could I make edits/additions about things that I am learning, since no one is paying me to do so but I believe to be interesting points? Thanks again :) Cathy88 16:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

David, Thank you for your time and information. I don't know how you can write such thorough responses and be a doctor. Busy, busy... Take care, :-) Cathy Cathy88 03:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Tea Tree Oil #safety

Hi, you seem to have inserted a paragraph documenting a high incidence of contact dermatitis associated with use of melaleuka oil. This appears in the "diff" notice and the history, but I don't see the new material in the main body of the article when I send a request or click on the "article" tab. This is strange. Do you find the same anomaly? This is happening to me in both Firefox and IE. Is there some sort of bug or vandalism here? Myron 03:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Drugbox-combo}}

Hey David. I think it's time to go live—care to do the honours? :) I'll adjust the documentation as needed (unless you'd like to do it yourself, of course) and compile a little list of pages where it should be deployed. I'll be working most of the day, so feel free to take your time. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied at Template talk:Drugbox#Time for new drugbox?. Excellent idea. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your capable support

I wanted to thank you for your support of me throughout the RfA process: the nomination, gentle but expert advice, your responses to other's comments during the RfA, welcome advice on using admin tools including Mindspillage's essay, and probably other things I'm not thinking of now. It has been very generous of you to mentor me through the process and I greatly appreciate it. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It was a pleasure, and long richly deserved :-) Ask if ever unsure which way to swipe the mop. David Ruben ^Talk 01:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week

WikiProject Pharmacology is currently organizing a new Collaboration of the Week program, designed to bring drug and medication related articles up to featured status. We're currently soliciting nominations and/or voting on nominations for the first WP:RxCOTW, to begin on September 5, 2007. Please stop by the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week page to participate! Thanks! Dr. Cash 17:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

New MCOTW

--WS 17:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week

Aspirin has been selected as this week's Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week! Please help us bring this article up to featured standards during the week. The goal is to nominate this at WP:FAC on September 10, 2007.

Also, please visitWP:RxCOTW to support other articles for the next COTW. Articles that have been nominated thus far include Doxorubicin, Paracetamol (in the lead with 4 support votes so far), Muscle relaxant, Ethanol, and Bufotenin.

In other news:

• Bupropion has been promoted to featured status on August 31, 2007.

• The Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology main page has been updated and overhauled, to make it easier to find things, as well as to highlight other goals and announcements for the project.

• Garrondo is asking for individuals to help review Therapies for multiple sclerosis, as he is considering nominating this article for GA status.

• Fvasconcellos notes that discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome.

Dr. Cash 00:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Quinacrine

Cindery (talk · contribs), the top contributor to the Quinacrine article per Stats is a banned puppet master. The Quinacrine article recently received some bad edits, which was noted at COIN. Would you mind reading through the Quinacrine article and make any needed changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't comment on the use for sterilisation - I learned about this role on reading the article, and it is not something that used in Uk. However have had a go at the volumous legalise language and duplication of information, as well as worked up the refs. David Ruben ^Talk 02:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

sports car knee

I appreciate all the thoughts on the article I wrote originally. I had assumed that since a well-respected orthopod presented this condition as a fact, and there was some references to it in the literature( JAMA, NEJM, Neurology), it would meet the basic requirements for an article on wikipedia. The difficulty in extracting medical content pre-1966 online , and the lumping of a few very similar conditions into one title that seemed to fit (but again was less than google-friendly) makes it tough to keep it seems. It would be great if it was possible to upload scanned old medical articles to wikipedia that are unavailable elsewhere.Fuiszt 01:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding, a few thoughts. If a condition has not been mentioned in the online literature since 1966, then it probably either never was, or at least certainly is nolonger now, notable. As for uploading old stuff, copyright vs GFDL issues of course apply, and the place for this would be Wikisource. David Ruben ^Talk 01:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Admin mop.PNG

Hi. I got some complaints when I started using an image that you created on Wikiquote admin sites. Rightfully so because it's a Wikipedia logo. Are you interested in creating similar logo's for the sisterprojects? --Steinninn 23:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Any news on the images? --Steinninn 00:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update

Here's a brief update in some of the recent developments of WikiProject Pharmacology!

• Aspirin has just completed its two week run as the first Collaboration of the Week! Many thanks to those editors that contributed; the article got a lot of good work accomplished, and in particular, much work was done in fixing up the history section. It's still not quite "done" yet (is a wikipedia article really ever done?), but after two weeks I think it's more important to push onwards with the development of the new collaboration of the week program. I will be fixing up Aspirin in the next few days and possibly nominating it for either GA or FA status.

• Muscle relaxant has been selected as the new Collaboration of the week until October 2, 2007! This article is currently rated as a "stub", so it's got quite a bit of work cut out for collaborators! Admittedly, featured status could be a long way off,... but still attainable! At the least, maybe we could at least get it up to meeting the Good article criteria? Please stop by the article and help improve it.

• Resveratrol, having recently achieved GA status on August 16, 2007, is now making a run for featured status. This is quite a fascinating compound. If you can, please stop by its discussion page and leave comments in support of it.

• Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing or dispensing medical advice amongst users. Specifically, talk pages of articles should only be used to discuss improving the actual article in question. To help alleviate this situation, the template {{talkheader}} may be added to the top of talk pages, reminding users of the purpose of such pages. Additionally, unsigned comments and comments by anonymous users that are inappropriate may be removed from talk pages without being considered vandalism.

• There was an interesting article on ZDNet last week about Hewlett Packard licensing its patented microneedle technology used in common inkjet printers to be used in transdermal patches to deliver a time-controlled release of drugs to patients. This information could be added to articles such as route of administration or drug delivery.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as one of the participants of WikiProject Pharmacology.

Dr. Cash 05:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright and the GFDL

Hi, David. I saw your comment on User:Caesarjbsquitti's talk page regarding copyright. Unfortunately, I believe that your comment was subtly wrong in its details regarding copyright.

All non-public domain images and writings in Wikipedia are automatically copyrighted by their creators at the time of their creation; that's a basic consequence of copyright law, and no Wikipedia policy can change this. However, they are also necessarily licensed under the GFDL by their copyright holder at upload time, or they will not be allowed to be contributed to Wikipedia. This GFDL licensing is only possible because the works are copyrighted in the first place, otherwise the license would be meaningless; ironically, copyright law is required to ensure the freedoms granted by the GFDL license, until the expiration of copyright on that material finally frees it completely, by allowing it to enter into the public domain. Copyright holders are also free, at their discretion, to also license their material under more permissive terms as well as under the GFDL.

As you correctly observed, claiming copyright on material for which you do not have the copyright, such as NASA images, is, of course, a no-no.

You were correct to cite the policy that authors of Wikipedia content do not claim attribution or copyright within the body text of articles: their contribution of copyrighted material under the GFDL (or public domain material under no license at all, since one is not necessary) is, however, clearly attributed in the history logs for each article, and the copyright status of their images is clearly attributed in the image pages which are easily accessible by clicking on the images themselves. -- Karada 08:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for comment, yes entirely agree with you - I was perhaps trying to be too brief and simplistic in that posting and on re-reading it does not read quite how I intended. I should perhaps have rephrased my 1st point that material can not be implied to have restrictive usage (as the captioning of the images on his userpage with (c) might imply) as all material must indeed be released under GFDL if it is to be included here. David Ruben ^Talk 08:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

MCOTW

JFW | T@lk 11:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

molluscum

In regard to your comments about molluscum and reference to ZymaDerm in Wiki please note: Retin-A is a proprietary commercially available product with published studies on the use of molluscum, salicylic acid is a commercially available product with published studies regarding molluscum, and ZymaDerm is a proprietary commerically available product with published studies regarding molluscum. Please explain why you feel a need to single out ZymaDerm for exclusion when providing people with viable treatment options? Also, some of the information you are up-loading about molluscum is not correct. The average length of time for resolution is not 'up to 6 months'.

Regards Briant Burke, MD Drq100 16:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

re ZymaDerm, replied on your talk page. Discussion thread on article talk page about duration and working through references on this (avarage is variously reported as 8 or 18 months with range individual cases 6 months to 5 years).David Ruben ^Talk 18:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)