User talk:PhatRita

AWAY for another while. PhatRita 16:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi please leave a message after the beep, and I'll try and get back to you asap! PhatRita

BEEEEEEP

Greetings
Greetings PR. I though I'd let you know that most of the alternative medicine articles have actually quieted down quite a bit in the last few months. Some of the more, erm, "opinionated" editors have left us for less contentious pastures, one assumes. So, I'd like to encourage you to wade right in and have fun. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line. Fire Star 1 July 2005 21:11 (UTC)

Abdomen pics
Hey there! I took the Grays pic from here http://www.bartleby.com/107/illus392.html and assumed that the date of the publication... "Henry Gray (1825–1861). Anatomy of the Human Body.  1918." meant it was public domain. But I'm no expert.... There's bound to be someone on here who could help, User_talk:Quadell seems to know a fair bit about these things. But quoting from his website I think the key is this: "If any photograph was first published before 1923, then the U.S. considers it PD no matter what the country of origin thinks". These images are held on American servers so it's PD for wiki, I'm not sure of the legalities passed that. See his page for more details: http://freeimages.blogspot.com/ Hope that helps? SeanMack 18:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

preclinical medicine?
I would warmly encourage a preclinical Wikiproject! I'm completely out of touch with basic anatomy and embryology, and most Wikipedia pages on these topics are somewhat outdated, stubbly or otherwise unsightly. There are a few other medical students around here, like Nephron, Turbantia, Nmg20 and a couple of others. I'll help out when necessary! JFW | T@lk  10:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd start with: the village pump, the Clinical Medicine talk page and the talk pages of all medically inclined people you've come accross. It shouldn't be too hard :-) JFW | T@lk  11:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer just to do articles here and there as I see the need. Today, I felt inspired to do the femoral vein... which is very student-ish.  Tomorrow, I don't know what I'll want to do... Nephron 01:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:MCOTF
Thanks for your interest! I have begun setting it up at WikiProject Clinical medicine/MCOTF. I'd appreciate any advice or suggestions you may have. See you at the talk page! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 23:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hi - just to say I'm happy to help out as best I can. Been reading several pretty good textbooks over my holiday, so I'll post bits and pieces out of those as and when. If tehre's anything you want me to look at specifically, please just shout - although no guarantee I'll know anything about it!

Nmg20 11:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Arm
PhatRita, you seem to have removed a large amount of writeup on this article. Why did you did so? Why not just add to the previous content? Alex.tan 02:00, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:Arm and place further replies there. Alex.tan 18:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Human anatomy catgory
Hi, thanks for your nice notes. I don't mind at all if the human anatomy cat is deleted. I only made it because it was the only (or first) grouping obvious to me from the article titles. I see that you or someone else has already put about about 50 articles into subcats. That's great. Maurreen (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Categorising Forehead
Despite your academic credentials in the field of anatomy, I have taken the bold move of attempting to correct your medical knowledge by moving Forehead from the category 'Pelvis' to 'Head and Neck'. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. akaDruid 15:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's OK, you made me laugh, I assumed you'd put it in as a deliberate error. I did a double take at first... akaDruid 14:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your work on the first Medicine Collaboration of the Week! I'm quite proud of how much the article improved, and I hope we remain an active force, improving medical articles on Wikipedia. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 02:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Carcinogenesis on WP:MCOTW
Hi! You showed support for Carcinogenesis, this week's Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 00:29, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, PhatRita; it's no problem, although we've missed you around here. Carcinogenesis could certainly use more work; I didn't get to work on it very much as my intern year is keeping me busier than I'd like (although once I finish my general medicine rotation it might get a bit lighter). Feel free to work on that or help us with our current Rheumatoid arthritis; I've been busy trying to get Asthma to featured status. Pneumonia's on my list too. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Category
Added category medical student to your userpage. -- Eleassar  my talk 09:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Biochemistry on WP:MCOTW
Hi! You showed support for Biochemistry, this week's Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Homeopathy
I really haven't been following the debate, honestly. I only came to the page because someone had reported on an administrator noticeboard that two people edit warring had broken the rule against reverting more than three times in a 24 hour period. So I blocked them both. I do have the page on my watchlist but I haven't delved through the history at all. However, I'm not surprised in general that you have encountered some sort of ideological divide here at Wikipedia that is precipitating an edit war. If you stick around here long enough, and edit enough potentially controversial articles, you're bound to stumble into one. Try not to get discouraged. There are procedures through which you can seek help. Try reading through Dispute resolution. The next step may be to file an RFC on the topic and hope to attract some more editors who may be able to help the entrenched editors come to some sort of consensus. The step after that generally is mediation. Good luck! &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 14:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Multiple sclerosis on WP:MCOTW
Hi! You showed support for Multiple sclerosis, this week's Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 03:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

PhatRita - Retard
''the phrase "Historically, the principle of therapeutic activity being enhanced by dilution rapidly drifted into absurdity during the nineteenth century. For example, Hahnemann recommended the use of drugs at dilutions of 1:1060, equivalent to 1 molecule in a sphere the size of of the orbit of Neptune." is redundant because we all know here that the level of dilution is not in question, but whether ultramolecular potencies are indeed efficacious.'' - are you sure you're a med student? what are you, a first year? What can I say? I can't argue with a statement as blatantly stupid as this... what kind of graduates is St. Andrews University churning out? Christ, it's scary. I can't believe you're even wasting your time, feeling that alternative medicine should be given a chance to prove itself. Ugh, try reading up on it sometime - it has proven itself to be a fucking sham. Perhaps this will give you a topic of conversation at the water cooler outside lecture theatres. --194.165.179.131 23:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to deal with people like yourself all the time. Instead of actual debate, I get pure slander and utter crap from people like you who just have no idea about the subject. They see a news article on the TV or the paper and think christ thats good I'm gonna go write on wikipedia. The first thing you should learn is that you attack the argument and not the person. If you have a problem with the comment I made, which is correct btw, then you reply in kind. Anonymously graffiting insults just makes you a great coward.
 * the quote that you have placed is not valid since the argument is NOT on the incredulity of the dilution but on the incredulity of it working or not. That is my comment, which incidentally has no bearing on whether alt med works or not. You say that alternative medicine is a sham, SO PROVE IT. PROVE IT USING SOLID SCIENCE, PROVE IT USING SOLID ARUGMENTS like I have been trying to for the past 4 months. If you think you are correct by spreading abuse then you are very wrong indeed.
 * and FYI I am in fact a third year medic. St andrews "churns" out some of the best scientifically trained people in the whole country. It is the longest medical course in the country, it has one of the highest %s in the whole country which ends up being hospital doctors, and one the highest %s for being a surgeon. PhatRita 13:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Cystic fibrosis on WP:MCOTW
Cystic fibrosis, which you voted for, has been selected as the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Connecting tubule
Hello. I noticed that you are a participant in the WikiProject Preclinical Medicine. The article Connecting tubule has been nominated for deletion. As this is an anatomical subject I was hoping to get somebody within the project to adopt the article for expansion. I could find no way to add the article to this project. I hope you or your fellow particpants would consider adopting this article to love. James084 21:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Alternative medicine
Hi. I'm aware you're on wikibreak, but in case you happen to drop in: Someone is trying to put Category:Alternative medicine into Category:Pseudoscience. I believe it is highly misleading to make this generalization. Perhaps you would like to weigh in with your comments. Dforest 04:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Oldcoursehotelphoto.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Oldcoursehotelphoto.jpeg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 22:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

“Medicine” on MCOTW
After a bit of inactivity, Medicine has been selected as the new medicine collaboration of the week. I am taking the unusual step of informing all participants, not just those who voted for it, since I feel that it is important that this highest-level topic for our collaboration be extremely well-written. In addition, it is a core topic for Wikipedia 1.0 and serves as the introduction to our other articles. Yet general articles are the ones that are most difficult for individuals to write, which is why I have invited all participants. I hope it isn't an intrusion; I don't make plan to make a habit of sending out these messages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:MED
Hi,

The main page of WikiProject Medicine has been redesigned. Comments are welcome, and please consider listing yourself as a participant.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Anat1
A you created, Template:Anat1,  been marked for deletion as  deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the  tag from the template. If you feel the deletion appropriate, no further action is necessary. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Asbestos & mesothelioma
Hi, PhatRita. I saw your recent edit to "Lung cancer". I am surprised to see that you dispute the accuracy of the statement "Asbestos can also cause cancer of the pleura, called mesothelioma". This is a well-established fact so I reverted your edit. I would be happy to provide references if that is helpful. Axl ¤  [Talk]  00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * [Rita, I've copied your response here for easier reading. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  15:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)]

Dear Axl

My edit did not refute the link between mesothelioma and asbestos. Please do not assume this. Indeed asbestos is still linked to mesothelioma, however "cause" is a interesting word as it implies complete responsibilty for the pathogenesis of the condition. Just as people who have strokes due to very high blood pressure - this is not a simple cause and effect. Of course, you can say that hypertension can cause strokes, but the more impartial, and in my opinion, scientific phrase would be "is strongly linked to".

The difference between the two edits changed from "can also cause" to "is also strongly linked to", which I think better reflects the fact that mesothelioma and indeed all cancers are based on more complex mechanistic failures of DNA replication rather than a simple cause and effect which we dont yet fully understand at the moment.

In short, I believe my version is better worded. Although in hindsight I think something along the lines of "increases the risk of cancer of the pleura.... fifty fold.

I have very little time to chase this up. Let me know if you decide to stick with the edit. regards PhatRita (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

""My edit did not refute the link between mesothelioma and asbestos.""

- PhatRita

Indeed your edit explicitly confirmed the link. I disagree with your interpretation of the meaning of the word "cause". Ironically the causal relationship between asbestos and mesothelioma is one of the strongest. I also disagree with your claim that "is strongly linked to" is more impartial. Does development of mesothelioma lead to asbestos exposure? Is there a confounding factor? If you have a strong opinion about the wording, I would be happy to invite WikiProject Medicine editors to comment. Axl ¤  [Talk]  22:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Let's agree to disagree. The original version stands then. Regards PhatRita (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Cardiology task force
-- Addbot (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC) T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
 * Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
 * If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate
Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter. Feel free to participate in the journal.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:
 * Publish an article to the journal. Even a medical student like you can make a submission.
 * Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
 * Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
 * Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
 * Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
 * Join the editorial board.
 * Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
 * Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
 * Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
 * Technical work like template designing for the journal.
 * Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to . If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at.
 * Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

 D ip ta ns hu Talk 06:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.