User talk:Ikkyu2/Archive 1

Hello! Welcome to Ikkyu2's talk page!
Feel free to put any messages to me just under this text; it will be very wonderful to hear from you.

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Blank Verse  &empty;  09:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

SoCal WikiProject
Since you grew up in SoCal, and are at least an occasional Calif. resident, you may be interested in the Southern California WikiProject and its parent California WikiProject. Please take a look at both projects and see if there is anything that interests you. If you have any comments or questions, please contact me. Blank Verse  &empty;  09:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Category
Added category physician to your userpage. Hope you don't mind. You can find those whitecoats with only one click. :-) --Nomen Nescio 17:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh, right under where I say I don't like categories. Thanks, though :)  -Ikkyu2 21:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Epilepsy
Thanks for the catch -- I have added 784.0 to the infobox, but feel free to make any further changes as needed (having more than one code doesn't hurt the template.) --Arcadian 22:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I've just been learning about ICD codes and am very puzzled at "784.0" being added on the epilepsy article. I noticed that you asked Arcadian to add it. From my understanding, this code means "Headache" and has the sub-items "Facial pain" and "Pain in head NOS" plus a few exclusions. I'm not a doctor but IMHO if "patients with epilepsy are being coded via ICD-9 under 784.0" then they are being wrongly coded. Surely Wikipedia should contain the single definitive Disease code 345, which has the various disorder-types within it. Perhaps you meant to say "780.3 Convulsions"? However this code explicity excludes epileptic convusions. Regardless, the 780-789 codes are for symptoms, not diseases -- epilepsy is not a symptom. --Colin 21:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 780.3 is indeed what I had in mind. Unfortunately, ICD-9 simply is not adequate as a seizure or epilepsy classification schema.  Despite the specific exclusion, up to 50% of true epileptic seizures presenting at American E/R's get coded as 780.39.  One of the reasons for this is unintentional violation of the ICD-9 guidelines; another is that there do exist epileptic convulsions that cannot accurately be classified anywhere under the 345; including, for instance, all first unprovoked seizures.  Also, there is a difference in thinking between the US and UK, I've found, on febrile seizures.  The question is somewhat definitional, but most of us Yanks in neuro-epidemiology consider that febrile seizures are related to epilepsy and best classified among the neurologic diseases, with epilepsy, as opposed to being 'symptomatic' of a 'disease' called 'fever'.  For all these reasons, erring on the side of inclusion seems prudent to me.  -Ikkyu2 02:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and correction. I appreciate that when a doctor in E/R witnesses a seizure, he/she may not be aware of any previous seizures or diagnosis of epilepsy. Therefore using the 780.3x code seems acceptable. If epilepsy is diagnosed, and this seizure is consistent with the patients underlying disorder, then surely "345.9 Epilepsy, unspecified" would do if no better 345 code applies. This code cross-references 780.3 with the only difference between the two being "epilepsy" - i.e. a recurrence of seizures. Since this is the epilepsy article and not the seizure article, surely the 780.3 belongs in the latter. The seizure article could also have "779.0 Convulsions in newborn". FYI, in the ICD-10 coding, there is "R56 Convulsions, not elsewhere classified" that is equivalent to 780.3 and "P90 Convulsions of newborn" is equivalent to 779.0.

Your comments on febrile seizures are interesting - reality is always messier than any organisation can define. The ICD-9 code "780.31 Febrile convulsions" is under Symptoms and not Disease. The ICD-10 is no different. So I guess the US lost that vote :-). --Colin 11:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Everything you say is correct and well considered. I still would prefer to leave 780.3 in the Epilepsy article, because I would not want, for example, a budding epidemiologist or analyst to wander by and think that she could pull all charts coded under "345" and be confident she wasn't missing any cases of epilepsy or epileptic seizure.  This is what I meant by 'erring by inclusion'; the other option is erring by exclusion, to my mind.  On the other hand, if you feel strongly about it, be bold to make the change; I won't interfere.


 * With regard to neonatal convulsions (convulsions occurring in the first 30 days of life), they are regarded by epidemiologists as symptomatic (provoked) events, the acute provocant being birth. On some levels, this seems silly to me, but it turns out that analysis of neonatal convulsions reveals for the most part an entirely disparate set of causes and correlations from those found in seizures which present later in life.


 * Your thoughtful consideration is much appreciated. -Ikkyu2 21:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just been reading the Clinical medicine project talk page and it appears these info boxes are a tad controvesial. I had to smile at the phrase "unequivocal codes & terms such as ICD9". I think I've got a solution: I've made the epilepsy code bold and the other convulsions code normal weight. I think this works just like a good index in a book highlights the key page for a topic in bold. Cheers. --Colin 22:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed that you'd asked me to be bold - and I was ;-) --Colin 22:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Semiconscious
Ikkyu: thanks for your comments on cerebllum; I'll address them soon enough I hope. I enjoy thorough criticism of my writing. As for our having met in the past, I've never spent any time in New York outside of New Years 1999-2000 in Times Square. I'm not a physician, nor am I a medical student, I'm a PhD student out in Berkeley. Sorry for the confusion! Did you know someone else with the last name Voytek that looks like me? There's no one else in my family who has really gone to college, so I can't think of who it could be. Semiconscious ( talk  · home) 00:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Paid Editing Project
Hi: My name is Tess and I work for a global independent research firm in New York. I am interested in hiring you for a Wikipedia editing project, based on your technology and medical experience and expertise. I attempted to email you through your user page. If you received it, please read it over and contact me with any questions. If you did not receive this email, please let me know and I would be more than happy to tell you more about this project. (You can call 512-651-1797). Thank you and I hope to hear from you soon!

Epilepsy rv
The last time I reverted epilepsy was on 27 September. What revert are you alluding to? JFW | T@lk  21:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I reverted because several users have been indisciminately been inserting links to the J Postgrad Med. Just adding an external link without a description is immensely unhelpful, and I tend to revert these on sight. If you think the article contained useful information please re-add the link. JFW | T@lk  01:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Skee-lo copyvio
Ikkyu2, I propose that we just stubbify Skee-Lo with really basic information, it certainly does seem like a blatant copyright violation. The last section on Schoolhouse Rock! is legal; I wrote it. (Just reply here if you feel like it.) -- stillnotelf   has a talk page  00:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Ikkyu2 03:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Done.  --  stillnotelf   has a talk page  05:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Epilepsy
Your revert of my addition of a section on epilepsy in dogs was unjustified. The fact that the article at that point was only about epilepsy in humans does not preclude the addition of material on the same disorder in other animals. Such a section was even requested on Talk:Epilepsy. Please be more respectful of others' contributions in the future. | Klaw ¡digame! 14:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I never said that your revert was a personal attack. And I did not "bite [your] head off." Reverting non-vandalism edits is generally an unfriendly act, one that merits some explanation. You reverted my edit with an edit summary that didn't explain your logic at all. You could have done several things differently: provided a helpful edit summary; put a note on the article's talk page with the explanation you put on my talk page in response to me; or created a new article on epilepsy in animals, which appears to be something many users are interested in. Next time you revert a productive edit, consider any of the above options in lieu of a dismissive edit summary. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Such a pleasure to hear from you again. I look forward to more of your communications in the future. -Ikkyu2 01:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good to see a new editor who already has decided he's above constructive criticism. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)