User talk:Chrispounds/Archive 1

Medicine manual of style: drugs
I would propose the following sections for new drugs. --Chrispounds 02:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

==Indication==

Indicate the approved usage in US/EU/Australia.

==History==

==Chemistry==

Could include Pharmacology, Pharmacokinetics, Metabolism, Absorption and Distribution, and Mechanism of Action. If this is going to be a short article, then these might just be 1-2 sentences. ==Cautions==

This follows the British National formulary. Serious side effects, “black box” warnings, followed by contra-indications and commonly found side effects would be in this section. If there are sub-populations at risk with this drug, it could be included here.

==Dosage and Formulations==

List the recommended dose and if there are titration schedules. When should this be taken? With meals? At bedtime? Let’s a list of the formulations available but let’s not get crazy with NDC numbers, colors, nor pictures. I do not think this should be the pdr. ==Veterinary use==

This is a nice to have, but I would expect that this is going to be one of the more “optional” sections. ==Legal status==

I assume this might address patent issues or lawsuits related to the use and or abuse of the drug. ==Cultural references==

==References==

==Footnotes==

==See also==

==External links==

Boston study
Thank you for your message. I didn't look at the study in detail so didn't realise it was so small: I was more trying to get something going on the design issue, to help our Spanish friend. I appreciate your desire to eliminate small studies, which can prove almost anything and are often used to promote expensive quack cures of dubious value. (Though if someone buys some coloured plates and mugs, it's unlikely to break the bank.) I'm not sure what the way forward is – perhaps a page on the small studies that we wouldn't want in the main article? Nunquam Dormio 14:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would propose that not everything needs to be in Wikipedia. Regardless of how hard you, and I and 1000s of other contributors work, things will fall through the cracks.  If we have significant repeated information on something, or something is a huge change to the status quo, then we should look at adding it to the entry.  Would you like to remove it?  Thanks for your other clean-ups on the page.  Have you seen the comments on the Peer Review page?  would you care to add to those or to help work through them?  --Chrispounds 18:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease
I noticed that you nominated this article for SCOTM, but there's not much chance of it getting through the nomination phase by Nov 3, especially not with enough time left to get much work done. I rewrote some of the pathology section with more biochemical information and references, but I've left the disease process hypotheses section for now. Do you have any sources to point to regarding the tau-causation hypothesis? I've found a few papers, but most seem to be in support of amyloid. Opabinia regalis 03:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your edits, I will have a look at them. I am very weak on biochem but I know where to dig things up.  I am an amyloid guy, but I saw a series of articles on tau in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease see  for example.  Tau was only discovered back around 1986 or so, and thus the research on it is not as robust as it is for amyloid. This next reference is a review of tau from the Internal Medicine perspective and is probably a good place to start.  . This article from Nature talks about caspaces as being another mechanism. This may or may not be something we want to add. As for SCOTM, I think the article will be fine with just a couple more people working on it with broad backgrounds.  --Chrispounds 14:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer, but I fear my time on Wikipedia is so limited these days that I will not be able to devote the proper attention to the article. If you haven't already, I would suggest inviting feedback at WP:MED and/or WP:CLINMED; I'm sure someone would be interested in taking a look at the article. Good luck with it, and I hope I'll be able to contribute! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

LDS temples are not Churches
LDS temples are not churches and should not be categorized as such. LDS use the terms church and meetinghouse synonymously to refer to the building used for their weekly sabbath services and other common meeting which do not take place in the temples. For more details please see Temple (Mormonism). Likewise neither the LDS Conference Center nor the Salt Lake Tabernacle properly fix in the "Church" category, as these buildings are not used for common worship services. Thanks, -- 70.57.102.250 20:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I was not up to creating a "Place of worship" category, but someone seems to have done that now. Since a most definitions of church state that they are public spaces, Temples do not qualify.  My mistake.    --Chrispounds 04:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't feel bad. It's hard to categorize temples in relation to churches.  While on one hand they are seen as symbols of the faith, similar to a Catholic cathedrial. On the other, they are not used for Sunday worship and they are not open to the public, which means more or less that those who attend temples are held to a higher standard of worthiness than a church.  The LDS Church really has no meeting houses that are more elaborate or prestegious than any other.  They are mostly cookie cutter churches built from the same general design.  Of course there are a few historic buildings, but I don't know how that fits into your list.  Maybe you could have a "See Also" section referencing the List of Temples page. Bytebear 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Question
Can you help to get the access to the "The public health impact of Alzheimer's disease, 2000-2050: potential implication of treatment advances" that you cited on AD page? It has a catchy title so I am interested in reading in. Thanks in advance. Igoruha 21:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

SCOTM
I removed it. You've made a great job! :) Rock on! NCurs e work 20:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

RE:204.98.2.30
Sorry, but i am not an administrator and cant block anyone. You can use WP:AIV to get attention to vandalism from an administrator. --Rettetast 21:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

IATA airport lists
Sure, just be bold and go for it. Take a look at Category:ICAO airport designator and you can see what I did. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just put each "List of airports by ICAO code: ?" into the one category but then I couldn't think of others to put them in. IF you do, let me know. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Image on pie charts
Hi Chris, I have created a new image to replace your example of a pie chart vs a bar chart Image:PieCompare.png; see the result at Image:Piechart.svg. I have tried to improve two things: firstly, use a vectorial format instead of PNG, and secondly, to use the space more efficiently (i.e. less blank space). I quite like the result; do you agree that the new image can replace your old one or should I improve anything ? Cheers, Schutz 01:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge of WP:DRUGS and WikiProject Pharmacology
Hello there. I'd like to bring to your attention that a merge between WikiProject Drugs and the newly-created WikiProject Pharmacology has been proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs. As you are a participant, I would appreciate it if you could weigh in. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 01:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Proteasome peer review
Hello - you had commented on the prose in proteasome during its MCB peer review. There have been some subsequent improvements to the prose in response to your comments, but they happened over multiple days due to the holidays. The article is now up for FAC here if you have any further comments or thoughts. Thanks! Opabinia regalis 06:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Alzheimer's
Responded on my talk page. Zue Jay (talk)  00:50, 16 July 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 17:47, 1 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 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 00:44, 5 September 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 05:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Alzheimer's
I have enjoyed the discussion too, have learned some new things and have to agree with you. I'll appreciate if you notify the editors on the talk page of the article Disease. --Eleassar my talk 16:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update
Here are a few updates in the realm of WikiProject Pharmacology:


 * The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.


 * The current Collaboration of the Month for November is Receptor antagonist. Please take a look at that article and contribute to it if you get a chance. Ideally, the article should adhere to the featured article criteria.


 * Therapies for multiple sclerosis is currently a featured article candidate. If you are familiar with the featured article criteria, please visit WP:FAC and review the article.


 * Anabolic steroid is the wikiproject's newest Featured Article, having been promoted on October 8, 2007.


 * Theobromine was delisted as a Good Article. The Peer review and GA reassessment discussions provide suggestions on improvement. Muscle relaxant was recently reviewed for Good Article status, but not promoted. Please see the full review full review here for details.

Dr. Cash 22:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Therapies for multiple sclerosis
Thanks for thinking the articles multiple sclerosis and therapies for multiple sclerosis are good... It takes a lot of work to take an article to this point and it feels good to know somebody appreciates it. At this point Therapies for multiples sclerosis is a featured article candidate, so if you think its good you might feel like supporting its nomination.

On the other hand I do think that both articles could be used as an example to improve the Alzheimer article. I´ll try to help since I am also interested in Alzheimer. Nevertheless I´m a neuropsychologist who works with multiple sclerosis so I´ll have to refresh some of my knowledge on Alzheimer. --Garrondo 15:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Copy-edits Alzheimer
Thanks for your copy edits to my editions... I'm spanish and make quite a lot of spelling mistakes. I believe that little by little the article quality is improving. What I am trying to do is to rewritte and specially referece good quality subsections to make them more stable (and also to refresh my knowledge of alzheimer). Once I finish with them we'll have to tackle the prevention and treatments subsections, and that wont't be easy. It would also be very interesting to summarise the pathology section since its too technical for almost all readers (at least is for me). Best regards--Garrondo (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Every time I use a ref in a foreign language is becouse in the english abstract appears the main point I´m making and I couldn´t find the same info in english... so of course you don´t have to check the reference. :-)--Garrondo (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cognitive Retention Thearpy
Hi Chris, thanks for your suggestion about summarizing I have done that and created a page for Cognitive Retention Therapy and tied this summary along with a few other studies to support my article. If you could please review and tell me what changes I should make I would appreciate it. -Chris Ashby | Talk 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright here is another much more unbiased approach, tell me if you think this is better. Cognitive therapies for dementia -Chris Ashby | Talk 18:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashby82 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia Study
Hi,

I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

AD
Hey, thanks for the information. Now, why wasn't that in the Alzheimer's disease article? :) I think it would make a good addition. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a about 2 years ago when the first section on the article was the history of the disease. We moved toward the standard format and that section was shortened. --Chrispounds (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

AD and AD Clin Res
If we're deleting content based on research results, we should really cite those results, at least in the talk, if for no other reason to ensure it doesn't get re-added.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Cardiology task force
-- MifterBot I (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 20:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)