User talk:Ekko

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:


 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * List of images
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 23:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the photos!
Hi Ekko! Thanks for adding those photos to the T-bane related articles! Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Rolling back articles
It took me a little searching to find out how. You go to the history of the page you want to revert and click on the revision you want to revert to. When the old version comes up, go to the edit this page tab. There will be a warning message that you are saving an old version. If this is the version you want to revert to then just write in the comment box that you are reverting and save it.

Let me know if I made sense here.--Jfurr1981 06:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

ventricular septal defect
Do you have an estimate of how big the VSD is? Also, do you have a reference for the 'typical' size of VSDs?

I noticed that you changed the caption to: Image shows a mid-muscular ventricular septal defect, typical position and size found in a new-born child. I thought membranous VSDs were more common than muscular ones (typical doesn't seem to be the right word).

I'm wondering if the VSD you posted is typical 'cause you see many of them. Aside from that... I wonder how big a VSD has to be for it to be detectable by auscultation... and what a 'significant' VSD is. I have the impression you have some expertise in this area--it would be great if you could share that by editing the article. Nephron 03:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I made a start on it by adding some references and a few little things. I'm just thinking there should be a link to Eisenmenger's syndrome...
 * Anycase, add stuff at will... I or someone will correct your English should it have errors. Nephron 02:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

User: stuff in articles...
Articles should not point to User: pages because the links break if the article data is exported. See Special:CrossNamespaceLinks. I do not know if there is a better way to track these items. Are you notable enough to have a page in Wikipedia. You might want to look at Wikipedians with articles. If you have a regular Wikipedia page, you could point to that. Fplay 22:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What I mean is that when articles get exported from en.wikipedia.org to, say, http://www.answers.com/, the User: data is not also copied and the link, if it appeared, would not work. Fplay 01:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

dextro-Transposition of the great arteries
Hi. I was wondering what the other arrangements of the arteries in d-TGA are, as I would like to be able to describe them in the article, rather than highlighting one and mentioning the others in passing. I have taken this out for now, as I cannot verify it.
 * I will look up the percentages of other relative positions of the great arteries at work tomorrow. However; I think there's a limit to detail in this (and other) cases. Remember, anything is possible in congenital heart defects (almost). There are variants that are reported in one or two cases world wide. But I will look it up. --Ekko 16:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that this is describing a general category of heart defects, rather than specifically d-TGA...I don't have that particular reference, but from the ones I do have, it sounds like "anterior and to the right" is d-TGA, "directly anterior" is probably overriding aorta, and "anterior and to the left" is l-TGA, "side by side" and "right and posterior" yet other variations of Transposition of the great arteries with other names. The coronary artery patterns do need to be mentioned though, hopefully in more detail - but under the "variations and similar defects" is where I think it fits best. The article does already mention coronary artery patterns, but not until quite late in the article, under "surgery"->"minor"...so it does need a mention as to the fact that there are variations...particularly in regard to whether coronary artery variations can happen alone, or whether they are directly connected to birth defects generally or certain ones in particular. Any statistical info (eg: X% of d-TGA cases have this coronary artery pattern.) should go under the statistics heading at the bottom; but, and I realize I'm probably repeating myself :P, the coronary artery patterns do need a descriptive mention under "variations". Thanks bcatt 00:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For a select few of us this is exiting stuff! The point that you forget is that in all the scenarios i mentioned the ventriculo-arterial connection is strictly right ventricle-aorta and left ventricle-pulmonary artery. From this one can deduct that the outflow tracts of the ventricles have to be more or less spiralled around each other to accommodate different spatial relations between the arteries (or rather the valves of the arteries) with the arteries still being parallell.
 * An overriding aorta is not a diagnosis by itself, but is a part of other complex heart defects, like tetralogy of Fallot (where the is no transposition of the arteries) or double outlet right ventricle (where a transposition of the arteries is part of the picture). The mistake of thinking "backwards", to surmise that a certain arrangement of the arteries tell anything about the arrangement of the ventricles and/or the connection between ventricles and arteries is a common one. Makes for difficult diagnostics!
 * I think this is an excample of the strenght of sequential segmental analysis of the heart: step by step go through the heart, only describe what I see, make no asumptions and "quasi-genial lightning diagnosises", desribing the heart as "which rooms are connected by which doors".--Ekko 08:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Email regarding arterial positioning
I have sent you a wikipedia email with my direct email address so that you can send the pages without uploading them to wikipedia first. bcatt 02:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Question
Is there a specific term for the "junction" part of the pulmonary trunk, where it branches off to the left and right pulmonary arteries? If not, is there a popular term that is used even if it's not an actual medical term? Thanks. bcatt 20:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. We call it the bifurcation. The same word that is used for the place where the main bronchus separates in a left and a right branch.--Ekko 21:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

So, it would be the pulmonary bifurcation, right? Is there a layman's term for it as well? Thanks bcatt 01:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Pulmonary bifurcation, that's right. And it's a normal english word says my Webster's dictionary, from latin furca, two-pronged fork. But I would guess it's not a word one need in the everyday vocabolary :-) --Ekko 08:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Photographs
We do give credit, just on the image page (if you click on the image). But since no one person owns the articles (WP:OWN), we don't credit people directly on article pages. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk) 21:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't see why ... we don't credit people directly on article pages... follows from ... since no one person owns the articles .... Credit does imply authorship, not ownership. In my culture recognizing authorship would be an act of courtesy. I register the norm on english wikipedia is different. OK. --Ekko 09:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if you click on the image, it tells you who uploaded it, so the credit is given where credit is due. Nobody signs the article to show authorship (there is a policy against that at WP:SIG), because you can check the history to see who has added what. It does say signatures on Wikipedia are not intended to indicate ownership or authorship of any Wikipedia article. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk) 02:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

tricuspid valve variant morphology
In the article Tricuspid valve is the statement


 * Tricuspid valves may also occur with two or four leaflets, and the number may change during life.

It looks like this derives from an addition you made back in January on the Heart valve page. Someone is asking for a citation for this statement, and I think I agree: for the number of leaflets to change during life seems remarkable, and deserves some supporting evidence, if you know of any. Thanks. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question. I'll answer at the discussion page of the article. --Ekko 07:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Fascinating! Thanks much. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Help on an article
Hi Ekko, I was wondering if you would be able to help on an article i'm workign on noncompaction cardiomyopathy. Besides a good looking over from some one with medical experince dealing with hearts and the like, it would benefit from a section describing how the defect is found using echocardiography. Iwas wondering if you could help out if you've got the time. Thanks in advance Philbentley 10:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * With delight! I need some time though, the diagnostic criteria have been debated, so I need to do some reading. --Ekko 09:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, Thanks for your help Ekko, Jsut out of interest do you come across it much? Cheers Philbentley 15:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would guess once a month. The hospital where I work is primary hospital for a quite small population, 350 000 or so, but we have a nationwide responsibility for severe heart defects. So the "worst" of Norway's children with heart defects pass through our lab. That means this is a very selected population. --Ekko 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania 2010 could be coming to Stockholm!
I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.

People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 07:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ECHO
Those two articles I thought were borderline cases. Feel free to reintroduce the tags if you'd like. I agree that they had some referenced content en.wiki does not. However, our articles are fairly well-developed. In my view, translation is very much work for little gain in these cases. Because of the difficulty translating and integrating text into an article that is almost of the same quality, I think translators' efforts would be better invested elsewhere, in the thousands and thousands of articles for which the Norwegian article is much, much better than our own. In essence, I didn't think the difference between the two was significant enough that the best way to develop them was through translation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I still disagree, especially the english article about coarctation are clearly sub-standard, and that the nynorsk is not, and I think that to state otherwise is an underestimation of the complexity of the subject of the article. --Ekko (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)