User talk:Lbeben

Welcome!
I first learned how to perform a procedure once named Cardiac Output or CO by thermodilution with an ice bucket, chilled saline syringes, a thermometer/stopwatch we called a computer and a Swan-Ganz catheter with terminal thermistor lumens when I was an Air Force medic at Keesler AFB Mississippi in the ICU in 1977. The utility of time temperature curves in defining CO was a methodologically incomplete and inaccurate technology in the late 70s but remains in the medical literature. The Swan-Ganz device is probably the first well documented trial of Right Heart Catheterization. This work remains useful in the elaboration of Pulmonary Hypertension and Eisenmenger physiology. Solutions of right heart catheterization hemodynamics seem to follow mathematical solutions of left heart catheterization.

Systole has been well documented encyclopedically in volumetric terms in many texts for many years. Distinctive, original work defining Systole was first authored by Adolph Fick. Ficks theory of Cardiac Output eventually led to noninvasive mathematical volumetric solutions for systole such as Ejection Fraction or EF. Ejection Fraction can be understood in basic terms as a ratio between End Systolic Volume (ESV) and End Diastolic Volume (EDV). Mathematical elaboration of methods describing CO and EF has settled into camps devoted to concise visual frames of the endocardium in systole and diastole. In simple mathematical terms, EF equals End Systolic Volume divided by End Diastolic Volume or EF=ESV/EDV. This ratio has perhaps been better defined by Simpson and/or Teichholtz as a reliable indicator of LV systolic performance. Given this mathematical model for Systole, one can then imagine mathematical inversion of Ficks solution for Diastole. Fick inverted mathematically for diastole yields Cardiac Input or Injection Fraction. IF=EDV/ESV. Calculation of decline of (Left and Right) Injection fractions seems a reasonable mathematical model for demonstration of diastolic heart failure to the extent that decline of EF represents decline in Systolic Heart Failure.

Advanced Chagas cardiomyopathy appears to be a close model to a transplanted heart (HT) in that the intrinsic Sympathetic sinoatrial/purkinge trees are spared while the Vagus Nerve Parasympathetic branches to the heart are selectively compromised in an immediate or incremental fashion. Both represent iatrogenic or parasitic burden on the Myocardium. Understanding that Chagas and HT both involve (eventual or immediate) amputation of about half the parasympathetic autonomic supply to the heart muscle [Myocardium] may represent a common physiologic understanding to many disciplines.

We must approach the subject from different angles. Neubauer, for instance (PMID 17360992) devotes 12 pages just to the energy metabolism of the cardiomyocyte. That may be a starting point for a paragraph on energy metabolism. We then need to look at the mechanical models, and their impact on physiology. For this, a physiology textbook chapter or recent review article would be useful.

History of Cardiac Theory
Unlicensed encyclopedic references to basic/core knowledge of the performance of the mammalian heart remain abundant. Comparative Eastern and Western contributions in basic understanding of heart performance may be worthy of study in measurable differences between systolic and diastolic heart performance. Viewed in readily verifiable encyclopedic reference, Ibn al-Nafis is widely credited with the first description of the Pulmonary Circulation in the 11th century. William Harvey is credited with the first description of Systemic Circulation in the 16th century. Both (long since proven) theories are today core encyclopedic knowledge to cardiologists worldwide tasked to interpret beat to beat left and right sided heart performance. Thus understood, al-Nafis first described right sided pulmonary performance of the heart, while later, Harvey first accurately described the systemic or left sided performance. All faiths have been rewarded by the combined discovery and contributions of these two early cardiologists. Cardiac theory was gifted in 1994 by a Smithsonian Museum of American History interview with Drs. Peskin and McQueen. They acknowledged the work of (Dr.?)Carolyn Thomas in the section entitled "Mathematical Collagen Fibers". Her work from the late 1950s is very difficult to find. If true, her anatomically enhanced drawings of the porcine heart represent an invaluable encyclopedic glimpse of how the myocardium works. It would be interesting to see if there are any links between Drs. Carolyn Thomas and Francisco Torrent-Guasp.

My interest in the heart
My interest in the heart began on December 26th, 1968. At the time it was easy to buy chemistry sets (imagine that today) and animals in formalin that can be dissected. My folks bought me both for Christmas that year and the next day I was already diverting from the instructions in the book. I properly dissected my frog but then removed the heart very carefully and opened up the north end. I then inserted a small spoon of pure cobalt into the open end of the heart. To my astonishment the heart turned purple within 60 seconds. At the age of ten I witnessed selective myocardial uptake. I was hooked. The Stannius Ligature represents the next level. Several years later on another holiday I was in my kitchen removing the yellow net from my Butterball turkey. (I have no affiliations with Butterball whatsoever). I looked at the shape of the turkey and the encasing yellow net and wondered if you could put something like that on the heart and put current to it. I got nothing but trouble after my first attempt at an external pacemaker.

I see the myocardium as an impermeable series of channeled muscular tube socks with at least four springs circumferentially woven into the fabric from the great vessels to the apex and back. Studied closely, the impermeable interface between blood and muscle in the heart has been well documented by those defining the Immersed Boundary Method in cardiac physics. Accurate measurement of blood mass is also important to differentiate between low and high output cardiac physiology. Anemia and Polycythemia represent opposite poles of myocardial Iron deposition. The Viscosity of the blood ejected through defined Boundary channels of semisolid specialized muscle uniquely defines the filling pressure and performance of the ventricles. The right and left channels contain small brains (ganglia) that are endocrine enabled to chamber and ratchet the load of blood and hold it for a time interval sufficient to allow the lungs to exchange gases and the most needy end organs to receive required perfusion. The presence of springs (Hooke's property) in the myocardium would help to better illustrate the physiologic phenomena at work. The existence of this property in the heart is supported by the prior work of Dr. Francisco Torrent-Guasp. If springlike properties are confirmed then Hooke's Law can be added to the known mathematical approaches to myocardial performance. --lbeben 01:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC) As per your question, just for starters http://helicalheart.com/new_video.shtml the heart seems to be a spiral. This video for me was like watching Bucky Fuller 's Dymaxion Map animation ( http://friday.westnet.com/~crywalt/dymaxion_2003/dymaxion_2003.swf ). All the models we have of the heart describe it so very compartmentalized and boxlike, linear. Just like Bucky's map showing us how the landmasses are indeed connected in a one-world-island, and how perspective really shifts perception/comprehension (the model is not the territory). Cheers, Gheemaker (talk) 06:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Description of the folding and unfolding of the myocardium by Torrent-Guasp is probably close to bedrock physiologic/anatomic science and worthy of encyclopedic mention with Galen, al-Nafis and Harvey. This gifted scientist showed the world the entire myocardium dressed out as a continuous elongated strip of muscle with figures of eights anchored circumferentially to the right and left sided great vessels. Seeing the myocardium illustrated in this fashion posits that each twist and turn of the muscular layers of the bands occur at a plurality of opposed Angles. Generated Angular Velocity of all of the engaged myocardial layers against one another represents an underappreciated Force at work within the myocardium. Torrent-Guasp knew the rivers and tributaries of blood and electricity that run back and forth through this unique muscular tissue helix.

Re: User Talk Geoffrey Wickham 1st & 11th March 2009
Hi Lbeben, Apologies for my late response to your comments on my talk page. In reply I must point out that I am a biomedical engineer & not a clinician. Your suggestion of cardiac pacing by way of a 'web' of electrodes between the pericardium and myocardium is novel. It is possible that such an arrangement may have haemodynamic benefits, however as it would require the high risk procedure of opening the thoracic cavity I believe it would be clinically unacceptable compared to the low risk procedure of transvenous placement of electrodes in the RV or atrium. Best wishes Geoffrey Wickham (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Lbeben, In reply, I don't view myself as suficiently God-like to assume what Dick Cheney might think !Geoffrey Wickham (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Afterload - bowstring physics etc.
Hi. Are the following 2 paragraphs regarding bowstring physics, that you added to the article Afterload, your own ideas or did you find them in a source?

Bowstring Physics common to Archery apply. Cardiomyocytes are histiologically clustered and intertwined like living elastic cables weaving over, under, alongside and around one another in a multitude of bowstrings structured in a favorable spherical shape. The cardiomyocytes form elongated continuous spiral strings anchored on two ends, sometimes on either side of a valve ring, thus anchoring in collagen, others in pairs reaching into the roots of the great vessels of the heart and anchoring in the Aorta and Pulmonary Artery vascular/pulmonary beds.

This histologic arrangement confers ratcheted bowstring physics allowed by Actin-Myosin bridging within the myocardium. The Length/Tension relationship generated by an earnest pull (or robust filling of the ventricles with blood) allows the strings to tighten and thus forcefully release in a titrated manner incumbent upon optimal coaptation of the valves inside and the strength of the pull on regionally dedicated strings of cardiomyocytes. A bowstring pulled too long or too forcefully eventually loses compliance and begins to fail.

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Electrical conduction system of the heart
Hi, I undid your edit to Electrical conduction system of the heart, because you put it at the very beginning of the article, where I think it doesn't belong. Could, please, add it again, but this time to the appropriate place? Thanks. Svick (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert in anatomy, so I have no idea how important embryology is (I haven't even heard that word before), but it certainly shouldn't be in the article before explaining what the article is about. I put your text at the bottom of the article, you can move it if you feel that would be better. I couldn't find the source you referenced, could you provide a link to it, so that others can reach it easily too? Thanks. Svick (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * do me a favour, please. look at the gif of the depolarization wave, and see if it is non-functioal, as it appears to be on my computer. the red dot should be moving. thanks.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to Cardiac skeleton
The edits you recently made to Cardiac Skeleton were of a rather confusing nature, and I could not comprehend what you were trying to do. I did revert, but I am willing to discuss this. Ronk01  talk  02:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edit @ Brachytherapy
You added some content and an incomplete reference at article Brachytherapy (here). As incomplete reference was giving cite error I have commented the reference portion. Please take care of it as it seems that it was due to some typing error.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 01:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. mgiganteus1 (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months. Over the years you have been asked repeatedly to write content that is reasonably understandable to the average reader. Instead, you use non-standard terminology, add links that point to disambiguation pages, resort to namesdropping rather than explaining concepts in physiology, and so on. Davidruben and myself have tried repeatedly asked you to provide sources for your additions, as personal understanding and knowledge are not sufficient for an encyclopedia and are not reliable sources of medical content. I am prepared to unblock you if you agree to mentoring by an experienced user, with a clear agreement that you will change your modus operandi. Thank you.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JFW &#124; T@lk  07:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Being blocked was a unique experience. I would agree that perhaps I wrote a little too close to the edges of encyclopedic inclusion and have tempered my present edits accordingly. I duly apologise to those who percieve me as an encyclopedic vandal. The time spent disconnected was tough but allowed some time to focus. I have tried to make amends by editing such work as Eisenmenger Physiology. My grandchildren do not know I was once kicked off of Wikipedia for three months, if we could keep this between us I'd appreciate it. LAB

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Ejection fraction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Work (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, based on your message on JaGa's user talk page, I think you misunderstood the above message. The message is not saying that adding a link to the concept of "work" was incorrect.  Rather, the term work is ambiguous — you should look at the disambiguation page, and change the link to indicate which meaning of "work" you intended.  Thanks.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Russ, forgive my lack of a timely response. I am an avowed fan of the concept of an online encyclopedia. I have not gotten on well with Wikipedia at times as you can see in my profile. I was once even kicked off the site for three months. My extended family finds this hilarious.

"Work" is a physics term well described in Wikipedia. In my prior attempt I began to elaborate the fact that the heart does Work, usually about 110,000 times per day. The encyclopedically accepted term that affirms and measures Work of the Heart is Ejection Fraction. The Forces that perform this Work are the well documented phenomena of Systole and Diastole. Obviously this all led to a disambiguation effort to match the terms work and ejection fraction. If a disambiguation edit can acknowledge that the heart does work I'd be greatly appreciative. Walking the encyclopedic edges is precarious at times, I appreciate your interest. --lbeben 01:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC) --

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Supercomputer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heartbeat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Contractility, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preload (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
Hi. When you recently edited Hooke's law, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Load (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Injection fraction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Work and Elasticity


 * Afterload (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Load

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Injection fraction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Francisco torrent-guasp


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Francisco torrent-guasp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. §haun  9∞76   ༆  02:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The dissection of a continuous band of muscle within the heart was first described by the (late) Dr. Francisco Torrent-Guasp, an esteemed physician and scientist now known worldwide. Myocardial Band theory deserves inclusion within an online encyclopedia. Work by Torrent-Guasp appears to be well accepted by Wikipedia Spain but is generally not heard in North America.

Injection fraction
Hello Lbeben,

I am adressing You as You are probably the main author of the article Injection fraction. I came to that article by chance (to disambig ATP) and found it rather difficult to grasp. Although I myself am profesional biologist (however apecialised for plants) I have hard time to understand some parts. I thought I would rewrite it a bit myself, however I am puzzled by few descriptions so I am seeking Your help.

The intro actually states that injection fraction is inverse to the ejection fraction, - so far that is clear and good in that place, however it seems to me that most of the article thereupon is describing the ejection fraction, not the injection fraction (Am I right?). It is fine to describe reverse function a bit to help understand the main topic-function, and then leave it a refocus on the main topic (injection fraction) again. What would be then the lay description of injection fraction itself? There actually already is article dedicated to the ejection fraction, where it is better place for detailed description of the ejection fraction then here.

I can see, that the concept of ejection fraction might be important to the reader to grasp the meaning, the substance of its inverse function, the injection fraction, nevertheless, the injection fraction should be adressed directly somehow too and ejection fraction should not be adressed more than necessary to describe the injection fraction.

Oww, I hope I did not overload You.

I made this starting change, is that OK with You? Or did I introduce there some factual error? I count on You that You will act on it, if needed ;-).

We should strive that the text would be accessible even to historians, mathematicians, chemists and all the other professions out there, not only to the biologists, not to mention physician specialist. Have a good time. --R e o + 12:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Injection fraction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Systole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Injection fraction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Load (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Injection fraction for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Injection fraction is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Injection fraction until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

I should follow this up with an article that outlines how not to write a Wiki article. I was astonished that it almost ran two years before the dastardly Dr. Wolff caught me (again). I think that the mirror image mathematics to Ejection Fraction made it all the more plausible. Not being able to edit for three months was painful. I have no further plans to find my way to the woodshed.

Injection Fraction
The inverse operation of ejection fraction. This is mirror image mathematics of a known solution of Systole. Clarification of mathematical definition of diastole in finite volumetrics would be a good place to start when compared to systolic description.

Disambiguation link notification for May 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Collagen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ventricular (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ejection fraction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ventriculography (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pulse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Systole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Francisco torrent-guasp


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Francisco torrent-guasp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Fun Pika  00:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Francisco torrent-guasp


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Francisco torrent-guasp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here.  Ignatz mice•talk 01:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Francisco torrent-guasp
I have deleted an article about this person again. Please do not use article space to "talk" to wikipedia in this way. If you believe Dr. Torrenth-Guasp has enough WP:reliable sources about him to reach our WP:NOTABILITY standards for an article, try using the articles for creation process, which can be found here: WP:WIZARD. Thanks.Slp1 (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Why is Torrent-Guasp excluded from American Wikipedia? Is the medical intelligentsia worried that myocardial band theory represents a way forward in understanding how the myocardium works? --lbeben 03:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muscle contraction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Systole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cardiac skeleton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boundary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cardiac muscle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Systole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

E-mail about Ejection fraction edit
Hello, Lbeben, I received your e-mail but prefer to reply here.

With this edit, I reverted two edits you had made to Ejection fraction. The reasons I reverted them were described in my edit summary. First, you signed content in the encyclopedia. The ~ or similar should only be used on talk pages and never in articles. Second, you made links which were not helpful to the reader. For example low pressure links to the similarly named weather phenomenon and high pressure links to a materials science topic. Third, you used jargon such as "blood exposed tech" and earlier you had added "sequelae" and "insult" which I believe are technical medical terms for consequences and injury. While medical articles must have some medical terminology, they should be written wherever possible to be understandable to the lay person. I have no medical background, but it looked to me like you were adding unnecessary complication to the introduction where it didn't belong.

Sincerely, SchreiberBike talk 18:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ejection fraction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compliance. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ejection fraction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elasticity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ejection fraction
Hi Lbeben,

Thanks for the email. To respond to the points from your email:
 * I didn't mean to exclude Adolph Fick from the article. Rather, as most WP:MEDMOS outlines place the history section towards the bottom of the outline (which I agree with), I did move the history section down the page. Fick is still there, which it seems like he should be.
 * I don't have a preference to the terms coil and recoil over systole and diastole. I moved the sections dealing with those around to provide better organization, and didn't change any of that language that I can recall.
 * I did add a few sentences to the intro and to the medical uses section in an effort to make the page more readable by non-experts.

BakerStMD T&#124;C 02:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ejection fraction, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stress and Strain. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Problem with your custom signature
You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your preferences are set to interpret your custom signature as wikitext. However, your current custom signature does not contain any wikitext.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.


 * Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Remove anything in the text box.  (It might already be empty.)
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
 * Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page.

More information about custom signatures is available at Signatures. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. 19:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

April 2021
Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hagfish, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donald Albury 15:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Collagen and copyright violations
Parts of this book appear to have been copied by you verbatim into the English Wikipedia article Collagen over several weeks in 2009, starting with this edit. You may not have been aware if it, but copying and pasting from external sources into Wikipedia is a very serious violation of Wikipedia's rules.

I see that issues of competence to edit English Wikipedia have been raised in the past on your talk page, but you have yet to be warned about your frequent use of plagiarism to add material to Wikipedia. You are frequently warned about not citing your sources, however.

I am very concerned about your editing behavior regarding copyrighted materials. Until such additions of protected intellectual property to Wikipedia articles are fully remediated and reversion-deleted on English Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia will be in violation of international copyright laws. This tells me that all of your voluminous editing in the past many years is now suspected to contain violations of copyright law. After checking your edits throughout your editing history on Wikipedia, I will have to report you to an administrative investigative body on English Wikipedia if I find additional instances of copyright violation.

PS: Not only did you waste your own time in making edits which must be reverted by hand, but fixing your copyright violations will take other Wikipedia volunteers much longer to accomplish than you took in making the improper edits in the first place.

PPS: Your user page is currently subject to speedy deletion as a violation of the policy WP:user page, as it contains material which is unsuited to that page.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Please learn how to sign your posts to talk pages
You have been on English Wikipedia for close to 15 years. It appears that you still do not know the proper way, as a Wikipedia user (in whatever language), to sign your posts to discussion pages. This causes much confusion for other users, as well as appearing duplicitous. Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: *Add four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, OR        * With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.Quisqualis (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

July 2023
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Biomarker. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I like to read about things nobody I know is interested in. Some call me a savant. I like to read about things I think will happen soon in medicine especially and have never been particularly observant of rules. I have sinned greatly in the past and have been booted off Wiki twice. My grandchildren find this hilarious. I like Wiki because there are many highly intelligent people here that don't think like me. Is there a home somewhere here for me? Leslie Beben lbeben 23:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)