User talk:Ian Furst

Your GA nomination of Impacted wisdom teeth
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Impacted wisdom teeth you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Impacted wisdom teeth
The article Impacted wisdom teeth you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Impacted wisdom teeth for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

editing User:Ian Furst/sandbox1
Don't be worried that it looks like I'm taking this apart. It will soon be put back together. It does need a rewrite and we've got about a week to do it. Feel free to revert or tell me I'm wrong, but I think you'll find a few gaps to fill in for now. Thanks, Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I left way too many notes to you/myself. But with an hour or so or work, it should be ready. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 05:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Smallbones are the remaining notes for me to change, or the copyeditors?  What's the due date? Ian Furst (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the comments are best handled by you, i.e. what did you mean by this? Others can be handled by almost anybody. Some are probably more expressions of frustration on my part - it's not you, but copyediting often makes me both cross and crosseyed (I just can't get things to read the way I want without further ponderous pondering). July 29 writing deadline will give me an extra day. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey there Ian, this is Nico from the osteoradionecrosis page. I was wondering if you were able to get a hold of an image from an of your clinic's patients for the site! Sorry for posting here, haven't figured out the messaging system yet so feel free to delete this later. If you find an image or haveupdates, feel free to let me know on my talk page. Thanks! Nicoespi (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Signpost submission re videowiki
I've just read the draft of your piece for Signpost. It reads as a call to arms but nowhere mentions the recent centralised discussion which, at the last time I noticed it, was coming out firmly against the idea. Seems disingenuous to me not to mention it as, unless things changed, it seems that your view is not in fact that of the Community. And, by the way, while literacy is ca 75% in India, huge chunks of the country that correspond with the lower literacy rates are often also those that lack the sort of decent infrastructure - comms, libraries, stable power supplies, reasonable standards of living etc - to take advantage of the internet. - Sitush (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * the centralized discussion was for a specific videowiki space, which we've abandoned until/if there is broader use of the tool. Yes, opinions were offered on the utility of videowiki in general but i have little doubt people will offer there opinion without a synopses from me. Yes, internet penetration is ~25% in rural India but it's increasing rapidly and we know that people make use of informal healthcare providers.  For medical information the question is not, does an individual have access, but do they know someone they trust for an opinion have access. Ian Furst (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They do know someone. The fact that western science doesn't like that sort of person is fine but Wikipedia needs to be careful regarding cultural imperialism and so using this as an argument as you have in the draft article is dodgy stuff. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, also worth noting perhaps is that ayurvedic medicine, which Wikipedia considers to be pseudoscience, holds great sway there and thus the effect of medical videos will be reduced accordingly. Anyone who has edited Indian subjects for even a short while on en-WP will be familiar with how the population clings to its historic practises, be it regarding caste, myths of origin, medicine or even the insistence on granting royal titles even though they were legally abolished by (at latest) 1971. If they continue to hold such opinions in spite of reading and contributing to Wikipedia then the videos are not likely to make much impact. - Sitush (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. I think Wikipedia is far more likely to become a respected resource if available in a local language video format.  Ian Furst (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you miss my point but hey-ho I think that is quite common among people in the west who have little understanding of India etc. I don't know whether you have understanding or not but it worries me that you are trotting out figures as you are here - where do you get them from? I hope it is not the WMF. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So in this short exchange you've accused me of issuing a "call to arms", being "disingenuous" to the support (or lack there of) for Videowiki, being complicit in "cultural imperialism" wrt stating that people in developing nations frequently make use informal healthcare providers, and having "little understanding of India" because I missed your point about deeply held Indian traditions. I'm a humanitarian surgeon with a strong belief that knowledge is power, and delivery of information in local language video format is a positive step for Wikipedia.  I claim neither cultural expertise nor authority, but I have a reasonable understanding of healthcare challenges in developing nations, and cited the references for facts claimed. If you have some suggestions for change, I'm happy to entertain them.  I'll add something about previous discussions.  Otherwise, I'm not exactly sure what you want from me.  Ian Furst (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification
Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Talk:Impact of alcohol on aging declined
I declined your proposed deletion of Talk:Impact of alcohol on aging, as PROD is the wrong venue for talk page deletion. If you feel like the talk page itself should be deleted, Miscellany for deletion is the proper venue. If you intended to PROD the article itself, the article page itself should be tagged for the PROD. Hog Farm (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

October harvest
thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2477 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)